The Enemies of Reason

The Enemies of Reason is a two-part television documentary, written and presented by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. Is it rational that the dead can communicate with the living and give sound advice on how they should live their lives? What about sticking pins into your body to free the flow of Chi energy and cure your illness?

Or the bending of spoons using your mind alone? Is that rational? Richard Dawkins doesn’t think so, and feels it is his duty to expose those areas of belief that exist without scientific proof, yet manage to hold the nation under their spell. He will take on the world’s leading proponents in their field of expertise, meet the victims who have used them and expose the history of the movements – from the charlatans who have milked these practices to the experiments and testing that have failed to produce conclusive results.

Watch the full documentary now

Dawkins points to some of science’s achievements and describes it as freeing most people from superstition and dogma. Picking up from his superstition-reason distinction in The Root of All Evil? (while recycling some footage from it), he then says reason is facing an "epidemic of superstition" that "impoverishes our culture" and introduces gurus that persuade us "to run away from reality". He calls the present day dangerous times. He returns to science’s achievements, including the fact that, by extending peoples lifespan, it helps them to take more advantage of live. He turns his attention to astrology, which he criticizes for stereotyping without evidence.

Slaves to Superstition

Richard Dawkins examines the growing suspicion the public has for science based medicine, despite its track record of successes like the germ theory of disease, vaccines, antibiotics and increased lifespan. He notes a fifth of British children are currently not immunized against measles, mumps and rubella, attributing it to fears arising from a highly controversial report linking the vaccine with autism. Dawkins criticizes the growing field of alternative medicine which does not pass the same objective and statistical rigor as scientifically derived treatments using controlled double-blind studies.

Science is just as ignorant and arrogant as well as those who practice religion. Science is just better at bull sh*tting everyone. I am a scientist and physician and find that there are things in this life that can not be explained by our understanding of science or medicine. For this id*ot to suggest that science alone explain everything is obviously a Darwinist and yet the THEORY of evolution is still a THEORY and not a scientific law. Its okay that this guy believe his ancestor is a monkey or a one cell bug in my toilet water but I prefer to believe that MY ancestors were human and created by GOD, not the result of chance that a toilet dweller later become human.

The scientific method is truly the only way t o go BUT modern science does no always stay true to it. it is corrupted by powerfull institutions and interests. So whatever method (like the placebo effect) works will be ignored aslong there is no way of making money out of it. Other example, Dawkins adresses the falsly spread rumor that 4000 jews have been tipped of before 9/11, BUT he fails to adress that the oficially stated cause of the collapse of the 3 WTC building due to a fire is absolutely NOT scientific. Also the dissapearance of the "plane" at the penntagon. Where are those sceptics when it comes to that????

placebo effect is the improvement we see when people take anything, literally anything and feel better psychologically, it literally means that if your treatment can only show placebo levels of efficacy IT DOESN'T WORK

" BUT he fails to adress that the oficially stated cause of the collapse of the 3 WTC building due to a fire is absolutely NOT scientific. " bold assertion, nothing to f--king back it up, bring me some peer reviewed evidence or gtfo

L. E. Alba
- 11/28/2014 at 09:53

Dawkins is a frequent practitioner of the "ridicule" school of public outreach on popular science education and secular skepticism. I'm not sure why he's like this but it may be attributable to being a Baliol College Brit or maybe his former exposure to being the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science (i.e; he may be getting old & impatient with "stupid human tricks") I especially enjoy it when he suddenly springs a debunking attack on some unsuspecting mushy-minded lunacy.
Whatever the reason, I love the Dawkins Canon---from media to books, all of which I've devoured with gusto. BTW: My personal preferences lie with the Penn Juliette "Bullsh*t Light" school of skeptical rebuke

This man has one of the most outrageously massive egos I have ever seen.

In the second part to this pair of videos, Dawkins comes off as apathetic, arrogant, and completely close-minded to the fact that science DOES NOT and WILL NOT have an answer for everything. In fact, all current science is generally based on old science which was commonplace for many years but has since been proven inaccurate or in some cases completely wrong.

The thing that irks me so much about this hard-nosed science mindset is that people who swear only by science are often just as hard-headed as people who are obsessed with religion. Once someone feels they have all the answers, they refuse to allow anyone else to even offer their opinion unless it is specifically backed by whatever stringent scientific testing protocol they have contrived as what is required in order for someone else's ideals or beliefs to become valid for listening to.

Science is amazing; but it's sad when I see people who completely dismiss what we do not know and only give credit to what we do know to be "correct". To live your live strictly based on proven science is to live your life by a set of rules which will eventually be proven to be as incorrect or "off the mark" as Dawkins suggests "alternative medicine" is.

I feel like society and pop culture as a whole are losing sight of the fact that these "alternative" or "new age" healing methods are in fact not new at all. Ancient healing and spiritual cleansing techniques have been put to use since the dawn of human consciousness; and there will never be enough science to change that. Modern medicine is actually more "new age" than much of the holistic medicine that Dawkins sarcastically dismisses as hokey in this documentary.

Reactions to Dawkins' style are obviously relative [...not to trot out an old saw of science.] If one has labored long in the vineyards of science education, one tends to get where he's coming from, finding it less off-putting.

madmidgitz
- 01/20/2015 at 19:01

"Ancient healing and spiritual cleansing techniques have been put to use since the dawn of human consciousness; and there will never be enough science to change that"

and so was bloodletting, do you think we should go back to that?
seriously learn some logic, thats the fallacy from antiquity, something being old does not make it true

"all current science is generally based on old science which was commonplace for many years but has since been proven inaccurate or in some cases completely wrong."

and that not complete bulls*it, we changed out theories of geology to include plate tectonics, we changed biology to have evolution and genetics, we literally threw out the theories of the ether when it couldnt be proven

and you know what shows that the old stuff was inaccurate? F**KING SCIENCE

timbo
- 04/26/2014 at 05:03

Science has served us well, as far as we can see. Im not religious by any means but to suggest that everything in the observable world must have scientific empirical evidence for human understanding is a little premature. To take what we currently think we know of the world as a ceiling is a fallacy. Science is the best way we approximate to and interpret nature, it is by no means exact. The advent of Quantum physics too has threatened the many 'beliefs' we had from Classic Physics!! has science explained the 'observer effect'? (for those that havent see the 'double slit experiment' ) how can we be so sure of what is and what isn't when it is claimed that we use less than 10% of our brains? we use more than 10% you say? rubbish conspiracy theory? what about the pineal gland is that a rubbish conspiracy too? Richard Dawkins is utterly and stupidly narrow minded and is just part of the agenda to dumb us all down.

We use a 100% of our brain. Anything less is indicative of brain damage. Your argument contains fallacious reasoning.

edgedweller
- 09/28/2014 at 22:38

so we use 100% of something we claim to know very little about?

madmidgitz
- 03/05/2015 at 14:51

more fallacious reasoning, nice job

and you may know very little about the brain but brain surgeons might disagree methinks

edgedweller
- 03/05/2015 at 15:13

lol you again - listen carefully; its not what we know, its what we dont know - and quit that fallacious inquisition once and for all.

madmidgitz
- 03/05/2015 at 15:20

thats an argument from ignorance, and there is a reason people point out fallacies, a fallacy is an argument that isnt valid logically

so we dont know therefore 10% brain use is bulls*it

show some evidence, any i*iot can make baseless claims, we should believe yours why?

edgedweller
- 03/05/2015 at 17:14

10% of brain use is - as you so eloquently put it - is bullsh*it. How are we to prove this is a baseless wives tale?

madmidgitz
- 03/05/2015 at 16:17

nice argument from ignorance there, and thats another fallacy by the way

"fallacious inquisition" seriously go look up what a fallacy is

its flawed logic, you are using flawed logic and so it can be disregarded

edgedweller
- 03/05/2015 at 17:07

I am 'using flawed logic and so it can be disregarded'? well I hadnt realized the logic I was 'using' was flawed and in contravention of factual logic lol you need some rest mad logic, go and have a lie down

madmidgitz
- 01/20/2015 at 19:02

"we use less than 10% of our brains? we use more than 10% you say? rubbish conspiracy theory?" explain every case of brain damage where small amount of the brain is damaged and yet there are effects, is it by chance that its always hitting the 10% we use?

odin damn use some logic or just read a neuroscience book

edgedweller
- 01/20/2015 at 21:03

you suggesting if we do use 10%, the 10% is localized? why would you think 10% we use translate to 10% volume?

balder you better take your own advice

madmidgitz
- 01/21/2015 at 14:47

fine then, show me any peer review study backing up your claim we use 10% any at all

or should i believe every urban legend?

edgedweller
- 01/21/2015 at 21:46

that is why I questioned some peoples belief of the 10% use in my first comment...

Aric
- 12/27/2013 at 20:46

This documentary was impeccable. We need to quit being superstitious and just plain stupid and realize all of humanity's achievements are a result of science.

DID YOU "eastern medicine" QUACKS WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY
if "eastern medicine" worked it would just become medicine.
what your saying is that mind body duality belief somehow forms a magic barrier that "prevents" germs and bacteria from getting in your body go ahead and wipe monkey shit on your body, eat rhino horn and stick needles in non-existent meridians and see how well that works for you.
alternative,s.c.a.m/c.a.m and "eastern medicine" are PLACEBOS, placebos don't prevent anything they just make you feel better

GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR
i hope you keep your mind open to reality instead of closing it to evidence
maybe you would learn something

also @ nazi medicine guy
people dont experiment on thier kids with medicine because THEY ALREADY TESTED THAT SHIT ON ANIMALS AND IN LABS A RIDICULOUS AMOUNT OF TIMES TO MAKE SURE ITS SAFE.
thats what science does, not alternative med where a shitty trial with no control counts as evidence and most of those products arent even tested for safety much less if they FREAKING WORK

if anyone likes rationalist evidence based rants or if you want to hear an opposing view point to your "faith" based medicine instead of Science Based Medicine please friend me on facebook

yes people should only take what is ordered over the counter, take your scientific derived pills of big pharma methylisothiazolinone, phenylpropanolamine, hydrochlorothiazide goodness. Who could argue with a multi trillion dollar business thats sole purpose are profits ooops I mean make you feel better?

madmidgitz
- 01/20/2015 at 18:51

hey look its the "long name fallacy" do you think we should regulate dihydrogen monoxide as well? it can cause burns, it can thin out your blood and kill you in high enough doses, it can also cause tissue damage at low temperatures

edgedweller
- 01/20/2015 at 21:07

did I say anything about regulating dihydrogen monoxide or anything for that matter?

madmidgitz
- 01/21/2015 at 14:41

and you miss the whole point...... if you didnt pick up on my use of dihydrogen monoxide then you simply proved yourself to know jack sh*t about chemistry or medicine

edgedweller
- 01/21/2015 at 21:54

and I dont claim to .... I just limit medication and processed foods I ingest. If I wanted to improve my knowledge on health I would do a course on natuiral therapy or nutrition, no chemistry or medicine involved. But i guess your point was you are smarter than me.

madmidgitz
- 03/05/2015 at 14:56

"no chemistry or medicine involved" well my point wasnt that i was smarter but apparently you just proved it

your body is made up of f--king chemicals, no chemistry involved are you insane?

"take your scientific derived pills of big pharma methylisothiazolinone, phenylpropanolamine, hydrochlorothiazide goodness"
you qoute these medicines as if they are evil, so i pointed out that everything with a long name isnt dangerous

do you limit your intake of dihydrogen monoxide thats a scary sounding chemical, in fact it can cause burns in its gaseous form and millions of people die from ingesting it the wrong way all the time

but im pretty sure you would not want people to stop taking this "scary chemical"

"no chemistry or medicine involved" the human body is made up of chemicals, no chemistry involved? no medicine involved?

i didnt make the point to show i was smarter, you have done that yourself

edgedweller
- 03/05/2015 at 16:57

your absolutely right - the body is made of chemicals...I think you're on to something... - does not imply that we require chemicals to maintain good health, on the contrary, the foundations of good health is based on prevention. A nutritious balanced diet, chemicals/drugs a last resort, the cure indeed

madmidgitz
- 05/27/2015 at 11:06

god damn water is chemical! water is a last resort?

you get more and more ridiculous

edgedweller
- 05/27/2015 at 11:18

Does your ward get PC privileges every month or something :) tell the nurse you need to get your head checked - tell them you need to see a doctor

madmidgitz
- 05/27/2015 at 12:36

yes because i know incredibly basic science, that makes me mad

sure buddy whatever you need to think to keep up your delusions, at this point its just an exercise in warning anyone reading than trying to convince you of anything

edgedweller
- 05/27/2015 at 12:39

you're warning people to get on meds if they're not on meds already?

madmidgitz
- 05/27/2015 at 15:48

im not warning people against meds, wich is dangerous and disgusting

im not fear mongering about "chemicals" because literally everything is made of chemicals

i have an understanding of science and reality in general better than that of an eight year old, something you sorely need to have

i accept the evidence that gets peer reviewed and replicated and dont just make vague conspiracy statements about "drugs" and "big pharma"

i dont make god damn logical fallacies then expect to be taken seriously when making wrong arguments

and then criticize someone for using logic

Guest
- 03/05/2015 at 16:15

"no chemistry or medicine involved"

body is made of chemicals, literally everything is made of chemicals

no chemistry involved? are you serious?

edgedweller
- 03/05/2015 at 16:36

lol

Achems_Razor
- 01/21/2015 at 03:54

lol, long name fallacy? have you been around any volcanoes lately?
"pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis"

madmidgitz
- 01/21/2015 at 14:43

that doesnt make it not a fallacy, a common argument from "the food babe" is that you shouldn't eat things with ingredients you cant pronounce

people are scared of long words, and its fallacious reasoning

Deborah Macaoidh-Selim
- 01/22/2013 at 13:59

Xerxes said to lash the sea 300 times as a punishment? Was it a tantrum-throwing thing, or did he really think it would hurt?!?

My mind is blown. I don't know the truth about the supernatural--maybe it exists, maybe not--but this is the crap that atheists have to put up with?

Atheists, you are all owed a big apology. I'm truly sorry for contributing to the religion problem. I wish I was as sure as you. I sat back a few years ago and imagined all of you watching and being subjected to violent religious conflict over the course of human history. It has to be ridiculously laughable and horrifying at the same time. If you want to find an island to populate with only non-religious people, you have my most heartfelt support.

Religion has not be the sole source of war amoung mankind. More people have been killed due to pursuit of other ideologies, vs religion. Most of our 20th century wars have not been about religion, more people died in ww 1 & 2 than most other wars combined.

Religion can accept responsibility for atrocities it has committed, and yet the world just wants to heap blame at the feet of a single source. Easier that way isn't it? It boils down to this. Religion without the evidence science can help, well eventually become no more than mere superstition and dogma. Science, however, without religion will eventually break down into mere materialism.

It is a waste of valuable time to try and cure ignorance. let the sheep of the church live and die in stupidity.
violence in the name of god around the world, thoughout time is the the only true evil I have ever known. learn from history that is what history is there for. The truly good people in this world are free thinking, with love for all unconditionaly.

Wow, nice to know that if I chopped your mothers head off, and raped you...that you wouldnt mind, and would love me unconditionally. We'll see what happens to Hippies like you in The End. And you are right, however, that you can't cure ignorance, and that you will "live and die in stupidity." So I will go...lol

Define science, define a "real" scientist, define technology, define the people you are talking about, define something you disagree with in this world, define rights, define yourself and you will see that there are many exceptions to what you are writing because people are proven wrong in all fields every now and then every so often.
az

Melissa
- 02/29/2012 at 03:03

over 5000 year old alternative Aruvedic medicine s still known to be the best provider for preventative disease. Modern medicine is really only useful in emergencies, like surgery. This movie is probably paid for by big pharma lobbyists.

So you're saying that the modern medical community has less to offer in preventative medicine than 5000 year old speculative curing? Then don't ever go to a doctor again, or take any modern preventative medical advice. I'd love to see how that works out for you. I agree that a lot of pharmaceutical companies are largely out for pockets, but saying that modern medicine is only good for "emergencies" and "surgery" places a big ignorant flag on this post. Money, more often than not is the biggest driving force behind progress; and while this pursuit of money may often be misguided, and you and I both may not like it at times, it does spur advancement in technology.

robertallen1
- 01/18/2013 at 02:00

We couldn't have technology and modern evidentiary medicine without it.

nonyabuzness
- 03/14/2013 at 15:09

He already stipulated that western medecine WAS GOOD for some things, like Trauma (yet you tell him to not seek trauma treatment).. His focus was prevention. Western medicine is nothing but Nazi science. Your Mengele-esque view of "treatment" is alarming. If you have kids, God help them. You are probably one of those abusive parents who poisons your child with disease. Over 30 at birth. Shame shame. You were given children to take care of, not experiment on, with Nazi medicine. Wow.

No robertallen, I do not believe in a lot of things that you probably think small minded people like me believe, but I was thinking about it some more and here is where I think a big misconception of Western medicine is found. They see the body as isolated parts, and as a result, they experiment and try to cure accordingly. So if you go to the doctor for a stomach ache he or see usually sees you as a big stomach. Well the body is a unit and that should guide our philosophy when we try to cure it. The mind body connection is also important and it should be explored further. I agree that Eastern medicine (and I know your blood is boiling when I call it medicine) allows for a lot of BS but it is not all BS, and I think their basic premise that usually we can not cure body parts independently, and that we can not separate body and mind is correct.

I assume that you've been schooled in anatomy and medicine not only to make an informed comparison of the eastern and western varieties of medical treatment and their efficacy, but also to describe the workings of the body.

If you haven't, then you lack the knowledge to provide an opinion of any worth.

nonyabuzness
- 03/14/2013 at 15:14

We have to study, to know if people are happy and healthy? Or to tell if a severe infection has now gone away, or our aching tooth doesn't hurt anymore? Hahaha. Nice one.

AUWR
- 06/02/2012 at 13:35

"I agree that Eastern medicine (...) allows for a lot of BS but it is not all BS..." imagine an ayurvedic docter saying that to you when you seek treatment by him. That's a subtle way of saying "i have no idea."
Source: proud student of Medicine.

nonyabuzness
- 03/14/2013 at 15:11

Very nicely put. I think Western medicine is good for trauma/rare illness (like on House), but both of those happen infrequently. Eastern medicine deals with prevention, and the souls as it relates to the body. Shalom

I understand that you can not believe the stories that people say just because they say them but I find it kind of offensive if you are suggesting that i would lie. As for the connection between the medication my grandmother was taking and her cancer there is plenty of literature out there.
Now, I am NOT a polemic of science, not at all, and I am not religious. I find these documentaries one-sided because they dismiss any other possibility the same way a religion would. I find the examples he is using easy targets and a lot of information missing. For example, he is not addressing the fact that psychics have been used by the police to solve crimes, or the power of dreams. Then I was watching another of his documentaries called "the source of all evil" which I found more agreeable, but he is making the claim that it is only through religion that good people do evil. Fanatical scientists have done plenty of evil just to remind you of some think of the time of electric shock treatment. lobotomies, syphilis experiments, and the list I am afraid is much longer. Religions incorporate ancient archetypes of myth that for whatever reason help people spiritually. For the most part of course religions have become political institutions and have acted as such.

Until you can prove your fantastic assertions with hard, irrefutable evidence, I refuse to believe you and if you take offense, sobeit.

I also refuse to believe anyone gullible enough to believe in psychics when all who have been subjected to closed , double-blind scientific testing have failed or performed no better than anticipated by the law of averages, including those occasionally called in (for who knows what reason) by an incompetent police department. See James Randi's works for detailed descriptions of such testing.

Do you also believe in divining rods, faith healers and fortune tellers?

Religion dismisses scientific evidence the way science dismisses beliefs founded on superstition, fantasy and wishful thinking--and that's just the way it should be.

Georgia Lignou
- 01/30/2012 at 03:10

For anybody to doubt the use of traditional science is plain stupid but the issue is not that. First Alternative medicine has not really tried to invalidate main steam science it is the other way around. Second what we call placebo should give us an opportunity to think. Curing the body might involve the mind more than traditional science is willing to consider, and maybe alternative medicine techniques that take a more holistic approach activate that capacity more effectively. What is wrong with that? and why is that held against them? Third, maybe we should not ridicule so easily wisdom from the East especially since we have just begun to understand the power of the human mind.
On a personal note, my sister suffers from a skin disorder that hardens the skin at the joints and it hurts and cracks sometimes dab. She tried traditional medicine for years with no effect. She is fully aware that it is a condition also related to stress but the flare ups were uncontrolable. She has been helped a lot for years now by homeopathy. Yes the doctor stays and talks with her. he changed her diet and I do not know anything about water because the medicine she takes comes in pills and I always thought it was vitamin based. Is Dr. Dawkins suggesting that she should go back to suffering? On the other hand my grandmother died from ovarian cancer caused by a preventive medicine she was taking for a breast tumor that was actually removed on an early stage. Is Dr. Dawkins suggesting that accupuncture is also hocus pocus because I know many people who have been greatly helped?

As for your personal anecdotes, we have only your word, especially the connection between your grandmother's demise and the medication she was taking and, quite frankly, that's not enough.

As for Dr. Dawkins, you'll have to ask him.

ranii02
- 01/10/2012 at 03:36

just finished watching the first episode, and while it is very interesting and i agree that evidence should be taken over just chance and luck, he just gets more and more biased, inserting his own views which tends to make me discredit documentaries.

ex/ his comment about people saying NASA's moon landing was fake, he just ended the sentence off with "which is absurd because there's so much evidence" i feel he didnt need to add in the word absurd. should have presented the documentary with a more neutral tone.

as i said reason and evidence is very important, but no dawkins, it is not the only valid way of thinking. evidence now are just theories, where MORE evidence is required.

one scientist (can someone help me with the name?) found that white people were more intelligent than black people when he compared skull sizes. thats evidence to some people, some racist people actually. but he actually compared male skulls to women skulls (which are naturally smaller). example of where 'evidence' is not so right.

When it comes to science reason and evidence are the only valid way of thinking. And yes, scientists have been wrong, but at least science has the wonderous ability to correct itself and make mincemeat out of your example.

P.S. What's the matter with the word "absurd" in the context in which it was used? It was certainly appropriate.

ranii02
- 01/10/2012 at 05:03

yes, it advances. and where have i stated that science is completely invalid? what i said is that the way dawkins mentions reasoning and evidence is as if science is completely right, and has the answer, which it doesn't. it does correct itself, and advances quite outstandingly, however, "mincemeat" of my example? its just an example to show that 'evidence' can be misused and justified wrongly. like s***

my point sir was that the PRESENTATION of the documentary and wording of things can be too extreme, such as the exact content of these documentaries and how astrologists use it.

and i haven't agreed or disagreed to the example, i used the example as a way that he should put less of his point of view. the moon landing doesnt fall under the topic superstition thus personal views shouldnt be stated in a DOCUMENTARY. its somewhat like the media should be neutral (even though a lot of us know it is definitely not); a documentary should have the more neutral presentation/focus on the theme.

as for the second episode, again i have a problem with his presentation. it took quite some time to just mention and describe the word "placebo"! im pretty sure the audience of this documentary is not stupid and figured out placebo and the example of homeopathy at the beginning, but he drags it out for SO long then finally mentions the concept. Dawkins blames the media for their exaggeration of medical fads, yet he somewhat did the same mistake.

aliceandthecat
- 12/31/2011 at 08:52

Am I the only Skeptic in Birkenstocks here? Am I then the 'sandal wearing green end' of the Skeptic movement. I resent the elicitation of trope at 35 - 40. Alas, oh well, back to the old O-chem text!!!

A trippel DNA Greating from Denmark!
You just have to love this....Finally a brilliant and intelligent WACK at the "Alternative"!
The only real sponsor possible for Dr.Richard Dawkins must be the Japaness brand "SuperDry"! he he!

At least Dr. Dawkins knows what he is talking about and can express it clearly. From your last three post, it is obvious that you don't and therefore can't.

Guest
- 09/05/2011 at 02:44

i went back reading some of your comments, have found many things i agree with.
You do shake the floor!
az

Vic Seay
- 08/23/2011 at 22:09

Just watched the first part of this documentary ("Slaves to Superstition"). Dr. Dawkins is right on in this show. Especially interesting to me was the segment on the Tarot readers. I wish he would address Wicca and the ideas of the occult as well. I was involved in these pitiful wastes of time and money and feel that the public needs to hear an expert's opinion on these inane practices.

Religion is just an outdated means of social control. In primitive times of lawlessness what better than to have an omnipotent policeman looking down on your population, who knows and sees everything you do or think, wagging his finger at you and saying 'DO THIS OR THAT AND I'LL SPANK YOU.' in his best Charlton Heston voice.
I am not saying faith is a bad thing but we still have faith in the wrong things. Why not have faith in man rather than some imagined divinity, faith that man can and will overcome adversity and do so in a way that benefits his fellow man will lead to mankind's further advancement and is far more beneficial to mankind as a whole than millions of murmured begging letters.
And if there does happen to be any truth in any of these divinities wouldn't it please them better to have created a race that can rise above primitive needs to explain away the inexplicable and join together in the bettering of their species.

When you're as intelligent, well-educated and articulate with accomplishments commensurate to these as is Dr. Dawkins, you've earned the right to be arrogant.

What's your problem?

massimi19
- 06/18/2011 at 17:49

"...you've earned the right to be arrogant" (?????!!)

jonathan jackward
- 09/05/2011 at 01:40

no you see his arrogance made him believe he dosent need to include the fact that quantum mechanics proves matter is conscious at the fundamental level of reality

AUWR
- 08/04/2011 at 16:44

Superstitions and organized religions ARE enemies of reason. Period. And it isn't uncommon for people to mistake intelligence for arrogance. It's actually pretty common.

jonathan jackward
- 09/05/2011 at 01:38

reason would be to include the findings of quantum mechanics (science) after all its what were made of! matter behaves like a wave of potentials well observed compared to a particle when not

robertallen1
- 09/05/2011 at 01:42

Once again, do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Road Hammer
- 05/11/2011 at 12:40

beside all this years, thousand years, was mistaking then this for example professor find the truth. he look for what? to decompose the body then bring him to life in from of him? but soon he will know.

awesome english, bro. Dawkins should talk how national identity - patriotism - and other such idealisms are enemies of reason, but he probably wont go so far. His doing good and important work aniways

joe31
- 04/24/2011 at 04:14

less go backto the ancient days when thr strong conqured the weak ,befor any religion brought tolerence and universal morality,and your worh and ability to rule depended on what class you were born in and blood line,and rulers were not check by anyone, you can gear the ruling party or fear god your choice,the one who gave you life or the one who dint.. all things will rise anf fall because man is made of greed,and there

I do not negate that people of faith do good acts. Just that you realize that in order to live a decent life one does not have to read the bible.

jonathan jackward
- 09/05/2011 at 01:42

no but they do need to read scientific papers on quantum mechanics which proves the unified field of consciousness

Sieben Stern
- 06/05/2011 at 02:12

there were 'holy' kings that ruled by bloodline. and holy people that used green and violence to get what they wanted. the bible never stopped anyone from doing what they pleased - it is only used to justify it.

joe31
- 06/06/2011 at 22:29

what makes a king with holy blood line ,what a joke,we are past that,the bible is innocent for what the poeple who attach themself use it for some live it some use it as a disguise and hide behind,the rein of the anti christ is the ego and everyone is guilty.

Achems Razor
- 02/25/2011 at 16:17

@Vincet:

Irish anti-christ? (quae haec est fabula?) you mean the "Anglish" anti-christ, or are you referring to Nostradamus world war 3 prophecy?
The papacy in Rome is the seat of the true ant-christ. If a person believed in this religion stuff.

Tell me, do you believe in your so-called "Rapture"??

It is fairly easy to use some of the "tax free" money that religions have gotten from the sheeple to give the illusion of being benevolent organizations.

It is true what @Hesus said, the higher educated, or a least someone with the smarts, will discount all this religious mumbo-jumbo!

I thought you knew that eireannach666 means Irish anti-Christ. I translated his name and was addressing both of you.

D-K
- 02/25/2011 at 14:18

I'd like to add to Hesus' comment;

In my opinion, those that exhibit behaviour as influenced by punishment/reward, judge and are judged in a black and white context. Wrong v Right, Good v Evil, kindergarten morality.

Any choice that has a moral pondering preceding it is context dependant, as such logically, there can be no ground rules, no absolutes. Either the ten commandments should not be, or they should be the innumerable commandments, i.e every rule should include every possible scenario that would negate said rule.

For me it just seems strange to adhere to secondhand morality when one can transcend its simplicity so easily in favour of different perspectives.

Either way, doing good things does not validate a belief anymore than the bad things invalidate it. Trying to justify/rationalize it just seems like there's a inherent need for validation which is all the more clear with the overly evident self-preservation mechanics woven into any organized religion's fabric.

I tend to think quite deeply about these things but in the end I'm just another agnostic (with a dash of nihilism)

Epicurus,
Why do you insist on using the Bible to defend your faith? I have already stated that I'm not here to win converts,or convince you of a truth you clearly reject. Let me say it again I don't care if you and others of your kind don't believe.

I was just pointing out that the atheists here; who are defending and in agreement with Mr. Dawkins (hence the name Dawkites) are as capable of the closed minded fundamentalism that they accuse others of and exhibit the behavior of extremists when others disagree with their point of view.

I admit that their vitriol inspired my entering the fray but I have refrained from name calling, I have mocked and been caustic when I pointed out the flaws in Mr. Dakwins reasoning. Yes, it is Dawkite philosophy since it is his Documentary, his books and his point of view that I am critiquing.

Quoting what the Roman Catholic church believed or believes does nothing to me one way or the other since I'm not Catholic and don't consider them a source of authority.

As far as the Darwin quote, one letter does not an abolitionist make. You can like someone and still feel superior. I don't see anything but agreement with a societal change. There's no mention of setting up a fund and committee to decry the abuse of Africans in Brazil and set them free. In fact he states that they are cheerful and healthy.

This letter does nothing to change the fact that his theory is racist.

William Wilberforce and others of like faith stood against slavery and were the reason for the shift in thinking toward slavery in the UK.

Yes, there were those religionists who did support the African slave trade and twisted scripture to do so. Kidnapping and selling someone into slavery was punishable by death in the Law of Moses Exodus 21:16. Which is what the African slave trade was. Also in the Law of Moses, if a slave escaped from his master he was not to be returned to his master. Deuteronomy 23:15-16 the buying and keeping of a slave was purely on the individual who spent his money. No one was obligated to help the slave owner. They were obligated to help the escaped slave.

Epi, Isn't it odd that you set yourself up as a divine judge and jury.

How do you know the inner workings of the hearts and minds of your fellow man or what inspires them to build schools and hospitals and charities? Could it be the New Testament where they are told to care for the widow and orphan and to look out for the interest of others not just themselves. To love their neighbor. The Old Testament too, read Isaiah 58. Read James Chapter 2.

I only point out the Biblical stuff because you did. SETI doesn't count as a charity. It was a project to contact ET's. I still have never seen or heard of an atheist soup kitchen or job training program or homeless shelter. So don't be too mad if I don't find that credible. State run doesn't count. Doctors Without Borders, don't know much about them except a Christian doctor I know has done volunteer work for them. It wasn't started in the name of atheism or a stalwart of atheism. So no cookie.

Just a thought Your namesake didn't deny higher powers just that they weren't interested in anything but themselves. Yet he taught his followers to only believe in the observable, but also believed the world was made up of atoms which couldn't be observed.....I'll let that go.

He also allowed his followers to call him soter Greek for savior and had them agree to honor his birthday after his death. So: Humble, simple Epicurus, who believed that death was oblivion; still sought immortality. Something to ponder.

To Mr. Razor and the Irish anti-Christ,

I said nothing about the founding of the USA. I was pointing out that people inspired by their faith have done good.

But since you brought it up: Jefferson and Franklin wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I'm not saying Jefferson was a Christian or Franklin but they did believe in a creator God who gave us our worth and value. They acknowledged the ideal even if they didn't live up to it. The ground and pillar of freedoms and rights according to them, was the fact that we were given them by our creator as our birthright.

Chew on that the next time you want to call people of faith (however minimal) unreasonable, irrational and deluded.

"The premise of Dawkite philosophy is that people of faith in a God are somehow unreasonable and deluded. That nothing but evil has ever come from said faith."

lol there is no such thing as a Dawkite philosophy. just because it is in your nature to worship or revere anything that you think speaks to you doesnt mean everyone else does. There is no Dawkite philosophy and no group of people who worship Dawkins. dont be a child. if you want to discuss big boy stuff then act like a big boy!

"Your definition of reason is that I must agree with you and your space brothers theory (or whatever theory you come up with) or I am delusional and unreasonable."

i dont think that is anyone definition of reason and i dont think people believe they can just make up their own definitions for things. once again you are projecting. and what do you mean by space brothers? thats really odd....doesnt make any sense. also theory isnt just something someone comes up with. you are using the colloquial use of theory if you actually meant what you just said.

"So show me the Carl Sagan Memorial hospital or Charles Darwin General. Name one Ivy league school founded by atheists. If your faith in space brothers is so wonderful where is your version of the Red Cross or Salvation Army or even the YMCA? Where is the atheist soup kitchen?"

well Carl Sagan helped start SETI which was discontinued against most scientists wishes, Richard Dawkins has a foundation which encourages children all over the world to gain an interest in science, Charles Darwin donated much of his time and money to many great causes back in Victorian days. There are a few atheist oriented charities such as doctors without borders and the bill and melinda gates foundation. Earthward Inc is an atheist charity, so is Foundation Beyond Belief, Fellowship of Freethought and, International Humanist and Ethical Union. There are many local secular soup kitchens. The difference between the religious ones and the ones that arent is the fact that the ones that arent religious dont announce that they are atheist and dont make a big deal out of it. it seems the religious groups do it to keep negative attention away from them and create positive public support.

However i dont think whether these organizations have started universities or charities has ANYTHING to do with whether their worldview is correct. it seems like you created a very useless red herring here.

as to your claim about Darwins racism and the churches hand in slavery lets take a look

"I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England if she is the first European nation which utterly abolishes it! I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open, honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies. I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese, with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; and, considering the enormous healthy-looking black population, it will be wonderful if, at some future day, it does not take place.
Letter to J. S. Henslow (March 1834); later published in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1887), Ch. 6 "The Voyage —1831-1836"

now what did the church have to say?

As late as June 20, 1866, the Holy Office (now called the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a statement that said:
"Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons.... It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.

once again your claims seem to crumble under the weight of contrary evidence.

the arguments you are making show only that the church or religions seem to have a deep rooted need to create as much positive public relations as they can so as to influence people to approve of them through their deeds rather than through their actual claims or beliefs. its pretty sad that you cant see that and abhorrant that if you do see it you dont care.

Medicine men and fire starters, holy and
Deemed worthy
Even then manipulating ignorance to gain superiority and cotrol. When will the world stop lazily letting their mind be filled and do it themselves. Religion, how easy.

Ok first, america was not founded on any religious grounds. It was founded so ones beliefs could be kept to oneself and out of the lives of others. Read thomas paine, or jeffersons works, they repeativly state this, and quite firmly. Even jesux was said to have stated to keep it quiet and in fact, to "pray" in the " closet".(sermon on the mound)

And religion has and does still enslave masses. The conqured masses, in which they enslave through warfare, through mental manipulation of weak ignorant intolerant majorities/minorities, and imposing its will through governments on people that know bettr. Religion requiers and exists of nothng bu slaves..Slaves to crosss, stars , moons etc, unquestionable obedience and threatn bodily harm and,or codemnation if u do not flly submit to th masters demands and obligations wholely and w/o question.

Slavery was abolished on the race basis simply because it was moraly wrong. They kept the mind body and soul! ALL religion has and does this and thats how gov have and continue to cotrol and maniplate the herds.

Get real, man. Your blind. Just like thy wanted you be.

@achems
Mabe someone should tell him tht atheist cant do sh*7 with out having to defend a round earth and hear religion whine like baby of how its offending their delusion, self induced trip.

Aww they cant say this cuz my bronze age coimic says so...hypocrites.

Reigion is offensive to me but, hey, im just a godless heathen, that operates off fact so its not the same, right.

@VeritasVincet-Are you serious? You do realize that the slave trade was championed by religious folk who argued that the Bible was in favor of slavery, don't you? Your 'Good Book'
is full of instances of where immoral practices are encouraged.
Also, just because someone espouses an atheist viewpoint should not necessarily earn them the sobriquet of 'dawkite' that would be akin to one of us saying that all who believe in god are 'Catholics' or better yet, 'Delusionists'.

The premise of Dawkite philosophy is that people of faith in a God are somehow unreasonable and deluded. That nothing but evil has ever come from said faith.
Your definition of reason is that I must agree with you and your space brothers theory (or whatever theory you come up with) or I am delusional and unreasonable.
So show me the Carl Sagan Memorial hospital or Charles Darwin General. Name one Ivy league school founded by atheists. If your faith in space brothers is so wonderful where is your version of the Red Cross or Salvation Army or even the YMCA? Where is the atheist soup kitchen?
African slavery came to an end because men and women of faith took a principled stand against it. Charles Darwin in his book of errors said the Negroid is inferior and has not evolved to the level of the Caucasian and is therefore incapable of grasping and learning the knowledge or skills of a Caucasian. Also Darwin was used to say that the Irish were less than human because of supposed skeletal structure. Such drivel is not found in my fairy book (O.T. or N.T.) which I enjoyed reading this morning.
Also an African Pygmy was kept in the Washington zoo as an example of the missing link. The Australian Aborigine was also considered a missing link as well and was treated accordingly.

Well, genocide is "wrong" from various perspectives (humanist, buddhist, socialist, yada yada) but what I'm getting at is that I'm unable to find the prime assertion, the thesis, the central point of his comment.

Is it that atheism is bad because atheists have done bad things? Is it that atheists doing bad things invalidates the philosophical views of people with said conviction?

Really Mr. Razor,
You're the one who wrote on a different topic that you couldn't wait for the religee's to post so you could send them whining back home or words to that effect. You and your fellow Dawkites sit around on this website and smugly mock people with a different view than you and call them stupid or delusional or worse for daring to think outside your box. Now you have the nerve to call yourself a simple man of science. What a crock!
Apparently you can't read or are claiming ignorance(lying) about what is clearly in my other posts.
I'm not surprised.

I have no superior position, am strictly a humble man of science. And what is there to defend, science? you are using science right now are you not?

I will let someone else point out all the the mass genocide in the world attributed to religions, in the past and now as we speak. If they so choose. Or search all the posts on TDF docs, it is already all here.

My dear Mr. Razor et al.
I simply asked you to defend your so called superior position. You still have failed to do so. Attacks on my person do not constitute a defense.
Macro evolution is not scientific law. Period. Blow hot or cold it won't change that fact.
I simply explained a Biblical point of view as to why Stalin, Hitler and the like were the scum that they were. I never asked you to believe it. I know you don't. Frankly I don't care (and won't lose any sleep)that you don't believe. You blamed religion, Christianity in particular for all the evil and wars in the world I simply pointed out the lie.

First of all I have not used the Bible in this discussion because I know that Dawkites don't believe in it. You obviously don't. So don't bother quoting it to me or make commentary on what you don't read, know or understand.
Just so you know: according to scripture God made man perfect and good, man was deceived and disobeyed God and fell, bringing a curse on themselves and on the planet and all nature [2nd Law of Thermodynamics(Law of Entropy)].
This is known as original sin. Thus it was man by his own freewill choice that brought about the current state not God. God also provided the cure.
Why ask you? Aren't you one who claims atheism is the true path? Aren't you one who espouses the benefit of an atheistic lifestyle and all the good it brings? Why not ask you?

Ahh, Mr. Razor true to your name you are trying to shift the burden of proof to me.
Yet, you have not answered the charge of unreasonable conduct by "reasonable" men, men who embraced science and atheism. Men who justified their behavior as being for the greater good of the state. Men who would not allow a discussion like this. Men who indoctrinated the pliable minds of children with there science over all, the state above all.
If utopia was their stated goal why all the bloodshed? If atheism and "science" are the blinding light of truth why not allow others to be convinced of that by the power of your argument, by your ability to make all equally happy. No, the argument was settled by the barrel of a gun which allows no argument.
El Dawko is as much a rabid radicalized fundamentalist as the leader of Iran. He and his followers are as closed minded as Stalin and Mao.
So it's reasonable to believe ancient space brothers did all this, yet it's somehow unreasonable to believe in a creator God. To quote from before "Tripe."

I am astonished at the amount of twaddle that passes for "educated" "open minded" discussion and the absolutist triumphalism of those who claim no absolutes. The supreme smugness of el Dawko and his cult followers is astonishing. Mr. Dawkins himself believes that highly evolved space brothers seeded this planet aeons ago. The seeding hypothesis so "brilliantly" laid out in Star Trek the Next Generation.
The hypothetical theory of Macro Evolution is just that, a hypothesis it is still an unproven guess as to the origin of the universe and man, therefore it has not been and it is not now scientific law. It is still theoretical.
You like to talk of religious fraud. Yet Piltdown man is glossed over, how about Nebraska man that was built around one fossil tooth which after further study was determined to be a pigs tooth and there are more i.e. the "lizard bird" which wasn't.
Hitler's favorite philosopher was Nietzsche, and Darwin was used to justify the racial policies of the Nazi regime.
"Peace would come if religion was gone." Tripe.
Joseph Stalin a fine upstanding atheist murdered at least 8 million Ukrainians through forced starvation and killed countless others through his purges and Gulags. How about Bloody Chairman Mao and Pol Pot of Cambodia at least 1 million of their own people. Oh wait, that's just survival of the fittest. That isn't wrong or evil, how dare I have an absolutist Judaeo-Christian value that genocide is "wrong".
Pardon me for interrupting you as you rape my wife, because your truth must be telling you this is what you should do and I can respect that.. -_-
Could it be that they were religionists in disguise since they claimed to have embraced "science" and "reason" hmmm.... who's deluding who?

The Enemies of Reason sounds just as simpleminded a title as "The enemies of Islam" or "Enemies Of Christ." Dawkins, who's trying to promote science and critical thinking, needs to be a bit more aware of the image he's putting out to the general public. If your going to combat pseudo science and religious fundamentalism, it's important to not come across as a fundamentalist yourself.

While science may very well be the key to any and all answers. In our present state, as epiricus so ignorantly stated, only a small portion of our species have access to such prestigious education. For the rest of us however, we can only have faith in what we know. Do you just expect people to sit back and let the educated elite figure the world out for them. No! We all have a natural drive to find answers for ourselves in any way we can. As allen put it, we use the tools that we have to do the job. The majority of people have nothing but blind faith to go on. Without it we are lost souls, or rather slaves to a small portion of society who believe they know what is right. Weather they are right or not is irrelevant, one must find truth for themselves.

Furthermore, ego driven comments directed at discrediting ones belief's are nothing more then ignorant. Maybe that is where science is lacking, lacking an understanding of basic human interaction. No one listens to someone who address's them as if they know more then them. Maybe your expensive degree has given you knowledge in many fields, but in no way do you know everything. If you had to spend a night in one of the many poverty stricken area's in this world, you may have much trouble. Possibly even die, while a little street rat kid can survive for years.

My point is, all colours of the spectrum are beautiful and I think when we can come to accept that, our religious and scientific advancements will have no limits.

Just wanted to add that my last comment come out a bit odd "..who know do not ask money" - this was meant more for big religious/mystic leaders who claim all this is fake here etc & they tell you how not needed money is if you pay them.

But i am sure, He will get it soon - it cant go on like that so long. It's easy to see he is in pain, bit bitter and is holding on things he himsef do not fully understand/believe anymore

I find his conclusion about alternative medicine rather contradictory. So here is the Dawkins paradox:

Alternative medicine doctors like Deepak Chopra make unfounded claims that they can heal people simply through a change in their thoughts and consciousness. Their results are nothing more than the placebo effect which is defined as a demonstrated improvement in the patient's health simply the result of belief in the cure (in other words altering of conciousness).

& yes - the ones who really knows what they are talking about do not go and collect money for their talks.This is first alarm everyone should have. Or maybe i missed some part of *really* and it comes out that money is essential thing to collect if you know all the "secrets" and can travel from one time line to another (yes, quant. theorizes also about this, and yes there is things that can move faster then light... just no need to bring the thingy your call the body)

Kind of disappointing to see so smart guy acting like someone who has lost hes head in religion. Even some of hes easy targets seemed to be to be wiser. I guess thats why they passed by from the filter - the editor might not have understand the meaning behind the words

All these people attacking science are so full of it. It may not be perfect, but science is the best way we have to generalize based upon repeatable observation. Any other way of knowing can easily be simply deception of self or another. Go on believing what you will and trying to pick a speck out of the eye of the scientific method and scientists while you have a plank hanging from your own.

Brilliant, as usual. I am surprised that anyone would have criticism for Dawkins approach in this documentary. I thought he was very even handed, and very kind to practitioners of placebo effect and superstition. I thought his questions and conclusions were ... (oops almost said common sense), let's say pretty obvious. I have witnessed this first hand (called a 'healer') I could easily have built my own group of followers, however, I assured people that 'they' were healing themselves, discuss the power of self-healing, and the placebo effect. Even so, many wanted to claim "I was the healer". Sometimes we want the super natural so badly we are willing to hand over our own power to anyone; that's what I consider dangerous, 2nd only to the unwillingness of many to question (both modern medicine and superstition practitioners) what are the medicinal ingredients and how/why do they work? On a humorous note I use placebo effect on myself all the time - it is remarkable how well that works; I am gratified by it; I am also honest with myself. I encourage anyone who is curious to test it out for themselves, you may save a fortune in treatments and homeopathic water :).

I would rather leave it to the individual to decide for themselves whether they want to believe in and actively pursue superstition. If they want to bankrupt themselves in every way, that's up to them. Screw you guys! I'm going home!

Another very reasonable doc from Mr.Dawkins.
I look foward to the day when he uses his many skills to put to the test the established scientific corporations.
Been following his work since 2001 and something starts to smell fishy on my not that delicate nose ;)
Even so it´s a good one to watch

We need both science and religion imo. Ying and yang,dark and light, - and +. Science is at its heart the same as religion. Both seek wisdom through the collection of knowledge. How they obtain this knowledge is where they differ. But does science not do the same as religion. Perhaps a scientist would like to explain to me what dark matter or dark energy is. They cant see it ,cant manipulate it , but according to them it HAS to be there.

Maybe it is there,but the point is,how does that differ from belief. You tell us its there so we MUST beleive it even though you can provide no evidence. Scientists will tell you that the concept of ifinity and dark matter refer to nothing more than there own ignorance to understand it.

I dont personally believe in any one god or master creator and I feel science is a neccessity. But I understand through reason that some things cant be explained. I dont however say because science cant explain it or it doesnt fit there version of the bigger picture that it must not exist.

We have crackpot scientists as well as crackpot healers. One may outweight the other but they exist in both fields of study non the less. If we look at any ancient scripture, a scientist will translate the best they can and paint this picture of how it must have been. Yet anything in that text that doesnt fit there theory is dismissed as hocus pocus. How can you look at a wall of hieroglyphys and take half the information and say this is the answer and completely disregard the rest of that same wall. This is what we have atm. They write down what they think they understand and leave the rest for someone else later on. The person picking up that research starts from that point rather than drawing on his own hypothesis.

To me ,all the sciences are as accurate as they can be except 2. I think we need to reevaluate geology and archeology a bit. There is alot more here than what history tells us. Math expains alot but I think there is alot missing still. More formulas to be discovered that will bring with them great discoveries and answer many mysteries.Unlike religion,science admits its evolving and makes mistakes. Religion has evolved many times but they refuse to acknowledge that fact. Trace it back to the beginning and its strange how much the two have in common.

In the end,its my own crackpottheory that science and religion will eventually merge into the same idea. And realise they both seek the same answers. Only then can we fully understand the universe we live in. Ying and yang, 1 can not exist without the other.

Are you familiar with Penn and Teller's show on the cable network SHOWTIME? It's called "BullS**t!" and it is basically a documentary show about debunking "The Enemies of Reason" like Dawkins does here... it's also hilariously funny.

They have done like, 6 or 7 seasons now, just flaying alive such things as astrology, new-age healers, UFO's, even things like lie detectors and the American criminal justice system!

At any rate, at least twice a season they completely turn me around on a subject matter. Offering points I never thought of. I love that...

You know, I can't believe I never commented on this doc! I love Richard Dawkins and this documentary in particular because in it, he opposes everything I oppose and says everything I want to say to every religious/new-ager con-artist!

Plus, all my friends were here chatting away, and I seem to have totally missed out on the conversation...

Well, I am still having a blast scrolling through and reading what I missed, at any rate...

As a World History PhD, (that's not bragging, it's a not a very useful PhD for making money!) I see what is happening in America as a simple repeating pattern that has played out since the beginning of human civilization.

As an empire declines, its frantic population tends to make a panicky dash towards fundamentalist dogmas and superstitions. This in an effort to get some imaginary god or gods or magic power to save them!

The Inevitable Result, of course, is a hastening of the end, because instead of doing practical things, employing logical solutions, etc... they are turning to fantasy.

This is my first foray into this discussion thread, and many of the comments have been enlightening & impressive. I thought I might toss in a few thoughts myself.
I found the Dawkins Doc. articulates many of my concerns about trends in modern society. Particularly here in the States. The erosion of rationality is painfully obvious here, and while I don't automatically dismiss people's need for religion, I'm quite alarmed about the Fundamentalist agenda to gain influence and power.
Some of the exchanges here demonstrate how this erosion is seductive. If all ideas are given equal validity regardless of evidence or based on feelings, nobody needs to do the legwork to support their position. The obvious downside there is no way to make informed decisions. So we spend money on magical medicines,or speak to the dead. On the political stage decisions of great consequence can be made based on what Steven Colbert calls 'truthiness' (It feels true, so it must be true.) I think Dawkins' point is the trend towards irrationality, not that dowsers are dangerous.

After watching another of Dawkins films i can't help but place all 3 (Richard Dawkin, Sam Harris, an Christopher Hitchens) into a intellectual comedy branding.

My reasons are many...

1. They fully support creating a dogma for atheist(that religion is unacceptable); This is just as destructive to humanity as it creates bigotry for people who don't NEED to understand the universe in its infinitesimal detail. (you do not *need* intelligence to live... dose it help sweatshop workers?)

2. This film made me do it... because the real enemy of reason is greed and governments. (the fact that so many country's perform the same experiments and there's no leash on these high dollar experiments; some of which haven't satisfactorily proved to not be dangerous to the earth).

3. Their ability to exemplify greed by sucking in atheists money; Thereby promoting greed itself. Why not provide their literature for free... like the bible(probably same reason churches cant run for free; they have to pay off their property and lifestyles.)<--- Though most do 'eventually' release a free documentary version.

4. Religion still trumps science in human morality see these two Wikipedia articles for proof... Eupraxsophy and Science of morality. (even though its been thought about teaching a moral system contrived through science; there is not enough thought on it cause morality appears to impede scientific progress?)

5. Since suicide is one of leading cause of death in our scientific based community nowadays... I cant say that science is bringing us happiness; "suicides in the U.S. outnumber homicides by nearly 2 to 1" people would rather kill themselves then kill another(this isn't excluding gang violence ect); "Suicide is responsible for 12 percent of all deaths among the 20-44 age group" and this is Europe. Now lets check out good old developing world where our society leaches "More than half the suicides (54%) in the world occur in China and India."(of documented cases) Maybe its religion causing them to suicide? "Religious beliefs discourage suicidal behaviour. A study in India found that religiosity was a protective factor". Wonder how many people felt it necessary to take their life in jesus's day if he existed?

Peace(with others) and Harmony(with nature) is the only way forward not science or religion. Then we can study things after we fix our world. :-)

They recently determined that you actually can free your Chi energy through acupuncture, based on something a talking waffle said. So I guess Dawkins got that one wrong. Also, it’s been conclusively shown that you can bend spoons with you mind. Well, not just your mind. Also your hands. But your mind is known generally to be involved, if not necessarily required for the activity. So that’s two Dawkins missed.
And, for my final trick, I’ll just point out that (arguments about whether science itself is subjective or not aside) the objective truth about the existence of God is that all of the evidence presently at our disposal is inconclusive. The evidence may tend in one direction, but it doesn’t yet complete the trip, and so believers in the existence of God and believers in the non-existence of God are believers all alike. I, myself, am a believer in the non-existence of God. But I also think Dawkins may have wandered a little past his proof. (I’m not referring to anything in the video; I haven’t watched it.)

Man, I threw up a little in my mouth reading these comments. First off I'd like to say science is not subjective, it's designed specifically to the point of being the opposite of subjective. Someone pointed out that science changes...Well that's entirely the point, God (religion) a subjective view, will go out of existence (not soon enough) for the most part unchanged. These comments fear for my children's science education.

It is grand that as human beings we have the ability to discuss and comment. As a teacher I see scientific investigation as a wonderful mechanism to explain. Investigation is a true freedom, without scientific investigation and all the processes developed around it we would not be having any of these conversations. Scientific investigation has shaped and will continue to shape the world we live in.
Remember 98% of all the species that ever lived on this planet are now extinct. That also can apply to us. Maybe a god can save us but I think we need to take the responsibilities for our planet while we have the chance to do so.

OH my god. I couldn't get past the first 30 seconds of this video because I was laughing so hard at the look on Dawkins face in the room of chanting people. LOL. Oh my god that was funny. I feel ya buddy.

Remember that people who speak to spirits, sell "alternative" medicine, bend spoons, preach about outer body experiments before writing books on the subject usually do it for their own financial gain. Just like a whole lot of churches & religious cults do.
They have nothing substantial to show to validate any of their claims, but prey on humans wishes that there is something more out there.
They prey on them, get them to open their wallets and in many cases stirr up strong feelings in them.
That isn´t only rude, it´s downright evil and I would have hoped that in our time this kind of superstition would have been exterminated through public schools and education. Judging from many of the comments here I am sad to see that is not the case.

@DK
LOL yeah , I love the giving logic to disprove. It does end up funny when they throw their fits. I get to have fun everyday where Im at , in the states. (bible belt)Bible basher! Im a pretty evil and morbid individual . Id perfer mass annihilation.

I applaud people like Richard Dawkins and Jonathan Miller for their ability to comfortably face and engage followers of things that can not be substantiated with concrete evidence. I look forward to an ever increasing number of reasonable advocates for science that utilize documentaries as a way of informing and challenging the human mind.

But seriously, my specialty lies in human social interaction (culture) and psychology and well.. logic.

These are the only things I can really discuss to great detail, strangely, I seem to be most active in the religion threads.. mostly because I can use logic on those that can't themselves. Plus, it's kinda fun poking into a hornet's nest of irrationality. :D

@DK
" For mankind to unite, one must do away with region/religion specific value systems." and "A country should be ran based on fact, logic and reason.. not a religious persuasion that exhibits influence through sheer numbers."

Couldt of said it any better myself . Those were two great statements. You get to hit the "bong of truth " for that well though out point.

I chose those 3 traits as they are a trifecta that overlap, and fill eachother's respective holes. Fact is quantifiable, testable, provable, if something is not a fact, we employ logic or reason. Logic is built on consensus and supports survival of life (not just human) at all times, if something is illogical, we reason based on fact. Reason is used for when both fact and logic fail to comprehend a problem, and we use collaborative effort to choose the best path. Now that that's out the way, let's begin;

"I never found the correct word for what I feel humanity is missing to be united and loving. The closest single word I can think of is education, but not as in schools or parental teachings. I mean education as in to learn how to think for yourself, as in to not learn one thing alone but to learn it bathed in all knowledge that surounds it and to always try to see things at least theoretically from as many perspectives your mind can capture"

-scientific and/or philosophical objectivity- encompasses all you just said. Scientific objectivity employs scrutiny, and philosopy allows to take different perspectives, problem solved.

"I have my morals set, yet I am always open to at least listen and try to understand how the other feels"

This is a contradiction to your previous statement. With set morals, one loses scientific/philosophical flexibility. It also denies the effects of reason, as fixed morals lead to pre-conceived notions, which leads to bias, which leads to "boxed" thinking. This is what we need to be rid of, religion is an example of "boxed" thinking.

For mankind to unite, one must do away with region/religion specific value systems. This is highly inprobable due to culture and it's inherent frame of reference that's passed on. Different cultures - different morals - different value system - different logic - different reasoning.

The - means "leads to".

We can't have peace without relinquishing freedom, try arguing people to relinquish freedom to have peace and you'll have a pretty tall order. China was unified, but not by peace. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's not exactly probable either.

For world peace, religion'll have to be the first thing to go. How bout you get started on that, I'll go get a sanwich and we'll meet back here at half past impossible.

@D-K
First thanks for taking time to debate with me :)
Now about fact, logic and reason being the best tools to lead humanity, I could not possibly disagree. But I wonder if we would think the exact same things to be facts, logical and reasonable. That would either require us all to accept someone's theories which even scientists don't do as they question all the time or to spend countless hours all humans together untill we find common paths of thinking or persuade eachother. I think both of those are impossible.

I never found the correct word for what I feel humanity is missing to be united and loving. The closest single word I can think of is education, but not as in schools or parental teachings. I mean education as in to learn how to think for yourself, as in to not learn one thing alone but to learn it bathed in all knowledge that surounds it and to always try to see things at least theoretically from as many perspectives your mind can capture.

I have my morals set, yet I am always open to at least listen and try to understand how the other feels. I have seen people of many religions do great sins or be true saints of love and compassion.
If we understand morality has nothing to do with religion anymore but with being a person compatible to love, forgive and understand, we could band together and show the people that can't think further than their little village, city, community, country or religion that we are all brothers and sisters and that there is hope for clinical immortality, almost unlimited resources and a paradise on earth within us, if we spend less time arguing and more time inventing and using our brilliant minds to make those things instand of guns and warplanes.

Religious people tend to teach their kids right and wrong BY the beliefs/bible, not independant of it. As such, their whole frame of reference is based on the notion that what their taught is correct, and all other information must be reshaped en conformed to their religious views.

And when religion has an influence on government and how a country is run, it affects the lives of those who don't believe. That is where the problem comes from, and that is why atheists/non-religious act as they do.

A country should be ran based on fact, logic and reason.. not a religious persuasion that exhibits influence through sheer numbers. They have those numbers because every religion is a self-perpetuating system. We "fight" because we're being "attacked", not because we have some notion that we're right and should be praised as such. I personally have no interest in that, but a country/community should be run under what is best for it's inhabitants, not for some idea concerning other-wordly matters.

Expecting to change one's faith with logic is near impossible. Faith has nothing to do with logic, most religions preach blind faith as being desirable and pure and the harder you resist all evidence against it the more devout and pure you are.

In my opinion lets just keep what we believe or not to a total personal level as in don't talk about it at all and lets get along. World would be great if religions didn't push people to hate eachother and if atheists didn't try to make them all change. The solution is to keep religion to yourself, let your kids choose when they reach an age at which they are able to and don't let religion ruin the possibilities of unity and love among all people.

Hey now, if they see religion as logical i'm pretty content with them not making an attempt. There are enough pseudo-scientific docs I have to wade through to get some factual stuff, let alone having to watch "science" that has been bent out of shape to conform to their truth.

As far as the crossing the road thing, I will not stop any of them if they figure god will guide them safely through traffic. I'm not going to act in god's stead, you'd think me arrogant!

Science is everywhere, religion is NO where.
Before I cross the street I gather information about traffic conditions, if traffic determine if I can gather enough speed in order to make it safely across the other side(all subconsciously of course).
I don't however step to the road edge and SELFISHLY and THOUGHTLESSLY think "Please god, let me cross the road without injury". Then just start wandering across.
Science is at very least an attempt. Come on religious folk, admit you are not making an attempt.

I love reading comments from religious freaks. 100% of the time, they get super-frustrated, stomp their feet, and practically revert to a fetal position when their lame arguments do nothing. The yell, swear, twist words, and use science babble to try to make their bullshit seem as logical and apparent as plain fact. It isn't.

The best part is how Dawkins never ventures into the realm of ultimate truth or possible answer regarding origins of the universe - he just has no problem letting you know you definitely don't have it, have never had it, and never will. It's amusing to see bible-thumpers squirm at the notion that they aren't special, magical, or powerful.

@SexMoneyMonkey - I would appreciate is you stopped pointing out every time someone has no clue what they are talking about. Every time someone mumbles random gibberish you jump all over there case and expect them to actually know something about the subject they are commenting on. This sir, is by all accounts, no fair.

I should have the right to disgorge nonsense and be free of supplying facts to back up my statements. Even more, I should be free to erupt my imprudence without criticism.

How dare you sir accuse someone that wont read books as being ignorant. The arrogance!

Now I know where the name comes from... I hope you and your Sex Money and Monkeys have fun in your little world of truth and logic because frankly im getting tired.

I don't see how I'm having a tantrum. I'm merely pointing out that you should learn the science, challenging that you are perhaps afraid that the science will disprove your view of quantum "theory". You then took offense to this and baited me.

As for the scam artists I'm talking about, one such would be Deepak Chopra who you mentioned before. A man who admitted that all the Quantum stuff he mentions is a metaphor in this doc.

I'm not mad. Merely pointing out that while it can be classed as hemp it is usually done so as slang. Cannibis Sativa is the pant fiber and hemp generally refers to the fiber or plants that produce the fiber. Though it can go both ways, the most commonly used these days is hemp for fiber.

As for the rest of it. You keep saying you want to learn about Quantum "theory" while you obviously don't. You much rather waste your money on scam artists than actually learn the science behind it. You are willfully ignorant because you fear learning the science will end your delusions about what Quantum "theory" really is.

We're encouraging you to learn. But to do so correctly, starting with the maths and moving through progressively more advanced topics.

What you (and many people) are doing is taking something you don't know and putting your own definitions on it. Many people do this and sell books about their misrepresentation of it (which is probably where you got your ideas).

"Hemp (from Old English hænep) is the name of the soft, durable fiber that is cultivated from plants of the Cannabis genus, cultivated only for industrial (non-drug) use."

"A fibrous plant or the fiber from it. Hemp is often used to make macramé jewelry, especially chokers. Hemp is one of the most versatile plants on the planet and produces a strong fiber; unfortunately it is illegal to grow in the US because it is related to the marijuana plant."

Marijuana is only refered to as Hemp mistakenly or as slang. Cannabis Sativa is a species of plant. Hemp is grown for fiber, marijuana for drugs.

He's got a point. You have this view of what you think Quantum "Theory" is, if you went out of your way to learn about it properly you'd be able to tell if your view was viable but, you don't. Either for fear of your view being false or out of laziness.

You might want to take your own advice. I'd suggest you start with calculus, group theory, and statistics so that you could work with quantum mechanics first hand rather than spewing your usual second hand nonsense. As before, if you can't do the math then you don't know anything about quantum mechanics; sorry, but you need to speak the language before you can drawn useful conclusions.

I was going to post a comment about this doc. but you guys have about said it all. I'll just say that I totally agree with Richard Dawkins that religion and superstition are two of the greater evils ever visited upon man kind, I should know I live in the bible belt. My area has absolutely no jobs or opportunities of any kind- want to know why? Because it's hard to get industry to move into a area where their is no entertainment, people are for the most part closed minded and backward, and you can't even buy a beer. These social restrictions can be traced directly to religion in my area. In fact we just had the chance to vote our county "wet"- meaning that alcohol could be sold, possessed, and consumed legally

All the churches and hypocrites unfortunately and expectedly fought this- I say hypocrites because these same people drive fifty miles every weekend to a place that is wet and buy alcohol. Now don't get confused here, I do not drink even socially- It is not that I think it is wrong it is that I think beer and all alchol taste horrible and I do not like the feeling of being drunk or even buzzed. But I would love to see some industry move into this area and for our schools and so on to be able to benefit from the revenue we would gain from going wet. Another example of religious extremism is when a reputable out sourcer for technical assistance for computer companies tried to move into my area.

They where told that because the people working their would have unrestricted access to the Internet that their business was not welcome. You see all the ISP's in my area have to block certain sites or they get shut down by the county or city they work in, can you believe that. But you don't have to look at my particular situation to see the recent destruction of belief- Look into the reasons we ended up at war with Iraq or Afghanistan- now I am not talking about the line of crap handed to you by the neocons but the real reasons- now look at who helped put those responsible in power- the religious right. All these guys have to do is hold up a bible and say they are Christian and boom- they have the support of everyone in the south almost. Never mind their politics or what might become of the economy if they support school prayer they have the support of the religious fruit loops.

I also wanted to comment on the discussion you guys are having about science as well. i would remind you that science is more about the methods used than the theory obtained. Yes theories are changed all the time, that is why they are called theories and not facts. Facts do not change- by their very definition they are constants like the speed of light or the number of protons in a hydrogen atom. I see Dawkins as defending the methods of science and the facts that have been revealed by those methods do not change. To say that Pluto changed because we decided to call it something else is really stupid and I fully believe that who ever that was that made that statement earlier in this discussion knows this. Dawkins made the statement in this very doc. that he did not know if their was a spiritual realm or life after death not that they do not exist. To say that it does not exist would be as diluted as those who say it does exist. But one can make scientifically based judgements about the value of say crystal therapy or some other juju nonsense, and i think Dawkins does this very well.

@Achem's Razor: Your attempts at patronizing are pitiful. Firstly, invocations to authority from age and (alleged) experience are out of place in a discussion of the scientific method. Secondly, on the background of your other statements posted here and given your necessary unawareness of my age or professional background your accusations are downright silly.

Boy's Boy's please stop using this site to slag one another off you are filling my in box with all your petty little squable's. While you are on the subject of vacine's, my parent's emmigrated to Canada in 1956 when I was only 6 month's old, I had to have a smallpox vacination to enter your country and I still have the mark on my arm, but suffered no ill effect's. I returned to Scotland in 1960 after my brother was born and smallpox had been eradicated in my own country. I then went on to study Nursing so you could call me a scientist lol I have had all 4 of my children vacinated against all childhood deasese's too, no ill effect, except Swine flu as they are all adult's now, but I advised them against it as I thought there had not been enough trial's for this to be safe. They took my advice and none of us including the grandchildren have had that one and we have not taken swine flu funnily enough. I am also a truthseeker much to my manager at work's horror. I question everything. I now work in patholigy and I love my job so come on Guy's exchange e-mail addresses and continue to argue with each other, but at least my poor in box would get a rest lol I am in no way having a go at you or what you believe in .It is just my Scottish sence of humour
Have a nice day.
Oh I just remembered if it were not for medical science we would not kmow how to transplant organ's and therefore save million's of live's each year go on and knock yourself's out.

I'm sorry, but I'm astounded by your lack of reasoning. Perhaps we just have a difference of opinions of the definition of safe.

But:
"If they are doing more testing than it is not safe!!!!"

This is just plainly false. If it were true then why would the test it? If it's not safe then it shouldn't be tested because it's not safe, what are they testing it for? Being more not safe?

Testing just shows that they're not positive it -is- safe or -isn't- safe. It doesn't show that it isn't.

Also, then and than are different words, you've been using then in the place of than incorrectly. Perhaps English isn't your first language but, than is comparing things while then relates to time.

Anyways, in my mind something can be "safe", "Not safe". But we can not label it either until it is known to be one or the other. So not knowing it is safe does not make it not safe, alternatively, not knowing if it is not safe does not make it safe.

@silkop -
"We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. "
Carl Sagan

The vaccine is two years old and
"The virus is not known to cause illness in humans, and no adverse effects have been observed in children vaccinated with Rotarix, but the agency decided to err on the side of caution with the warning until more information can be obtained."

If anything this just goes to show how careful people are when it comes to vaccines and supports my case that vaccines are good. So no, it might not be safe but so far it hasn't been found to be not safe. Even just the chance of it being dangerous has resulted in it being called back. Which just reinforces the case that all vaccines used are safe.

So funny, now we have a bunch of college kids on this site telling everybody they have it all figured out. Because of some Prof's. saying, this is the way it is kids. Almost like a religious feruer. Believe it or fail!

Me new age?? I do not think so! although some of that stuff does make sense.
Why would you think that it may surprise me that Einstein
Opposed QM? You probably were not even born when I already was looking into Einsteins new theories in the 1950's !! And tell me what you think has not been opposed, suppressed over the ages???

@HaTe_MaChInE - Your comments regarding scientific method are all correct, but might not be the most convincing way to explain the matter to the confused.

So far, the simplest way I found of contrasting scientific theories (aka truth) with pseudo-scientific rubbish, is to stress the predictive nature of the former and non-predictive nature of the latter. Science explains things. But there are millions ways of "explaining" things which are not science, and much inferior to science. With little practice, wild or even laymen-convincing theories can be mass-produced at will. But producing theories is also not science (though it is a way of pretending which is widespread in academia). Only if you come up with a theory which predicts things more reliably than anyone else's theory, then you have improved our understanding of the world and advanced science. Possibly you can then wrap it into useful products and get rich from it. However, getting rich is, of course, not science. For more distinctions, go read Feynman's paper "Cargo cult science".

The wannabe "competitors" of science may be successful in misleading people (selling well to the market), but they are all laughable and embarassing as far as reliable predictions are concerned. The quantum mumbo-jumbos are only as respectable as experimental predictions they can make. If more ordinary people learned to judge theories they are bombarded with by their predictive power, the world would be a very different place indeed.

The scientific approach does have its limitations. The quality of our models' predicitions necessarily depends on how precisely we are able to measure stuff - predictive models are just procedures that transform input data into output data. In disciplines such as meteorology, it is an insurmountable problem that the measurements required *in principle* by the models are too costly or even practically impossible to obtain.

For a good angle of attack on classical positivist science, listen to what chaos theory has to say (and yes, it is a theory with demonstrable, solid, empirical predictions). There is a documentary on chaos theory on this site which provides food for thought and also subtracts my from scientific optimism. But even so, I would rather err on the conservative "Newtonian" side than fall prey to new age bs, as apparently happened in Achem's Razor's case.

@Achem's Razor: It might surprise you that Einstein has firmly opposed QM up until his death (there's a doc on this site which touches upon it). Another person who opposed QM, and whose papers provide interesting insight into WHY he did not like it, was the late physicist E. T. Jaynes. He has accused QM proponents of defacing science by declaring their assumptions holy instead of attempting to dig deeper. Pointing fingers at QM in defense of open-mindedness is particularly ignorant or dishonest, as was QM loudmouths' treatment of Einstein's opposition.

A scientist asks "at what temperature does water boil". He gets a pot and a thermometer measuring temp in K and goes down to the noce little lab by the beach. From other experiments he has observed something and now makes the hypothesis "the water will boil at 373.15". The scientist then boils water, analyzes the data, and publishes that water boils at 373.15 kelvin.

A few scientists get the paper at the local university, they decide to retest before they allow it to be published. 2 independent labs retest and confirm the results. The paper is then published.

So are the results now "truth"? I think not.

Another scientist receives the journal a few months later. It takes a while to et to the scientist because his lab is up in the Rocky mountains. He is skeptical and decides to perform the experiment. He gets the exact same pots and thermometer and boils water. To his surprise the water boils at 362.93 kelvin. He repeats the experiment many times.

So I ask know... what is the "truth".

The scientist in the Rockies send the results to a university half way down the mountain. The scientist half way down the mountain performs the experiment and gets the results that water boils at 368.13 kelvin.

Oh Noes, more truth.

Now some guy writes a book about how Quantum Consciousness causes water memory and it can be proven by the fact that water boils easier in the mountains then near the sea. He says the water in the mountains has MORE memory of being in clouds and there for it easily changes back to vapor. He even has 2 universities a published paper and a dozen scientist that confirm water does indeed boil at lower temperatures in the mountains.

Thanks for the info. I'd love to support it but I just started my cannabis "fasting" (have to take a D&A test for work in a few weeks) and I don't know if I could participate in the march without participating in the other activities too lol.

@ne171pro - unless this force is something that cant be explained by science (science goes by the 4 forces) Your theory is easily debunked. If you claim there are other forces out there. Then you sir need to write up a paper and get yourself a nobel prize. I think the prize is getting to the 2 million dollar mark these days.

It would seem that someone siting a gallon of milk next to you would have about 10 times the gravitational effect on you than the moon has.

Heavenly bodies have almost no effect on us whats so ever. A refrigerator magnet has orders of magnitude more effect on the human body them any planet (except the earth). Except for the fact that it is spewing out radiation the sun has next to no effect on us.

@ne171pro you are completely wrong if you think celestial bodies have ANY effect on our lives. the only things in the sky which effect us are the moon and sun and they only effect our gravity.

you are completely wrong. and you dont have to lie to us and tell us you use i-ching to live money free. there is no way you are talking to us and living money free. unless you are living money free but at the expense of those around you.

if you think astrology and the i-ching is real you have no say in who is a good scientist and who isnt.

BTW just some of Dawkins qualifications.

"Dawkins was awarded a Doctor of Science by the University of Oxford in 1989. He holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Huddersfield, University of Westminster, Durham University, the University of Hull, and the University of Antwerp, and honorary doctorates from the University of Aberdeen, Open University, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and the University of Valencia. He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and the Australian National University, and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and the Royal Society in 2001. He is one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society.

In 1987, Dawkins received a Royal Society of Literature award and a Los Angeles Times Literary Prize for his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the same year, he received a Sci. Tech Prize for Best Television Documentary Science Programme of the Year, for the BBC Horizon episode The Blind Watchmaker.

His other awards have included the Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), Finlay innovation award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002) and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009).

Dawkins topped Prospect magazine's 2004 list of the top 100 public British intellectuals, as decided by the readers, receiving twice as many votes as the runner-up. He has been short-listed as a candidate in their 2008 follow-up poll. In 2005, the Hamburg-based Alfred Toepfer Foundation awarded him its Shakespeare Prize in recognition of his "concise and accessible presentation of scientific knowledge". He won the Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science for 2006 and the Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year Award for 2007. In the same year, he was listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007, and was awarded the Deschner Award, named after German anti-clerical author Karlheinz Deschner.

Since 2003, the Atheist Alliance International has awarded a prize during its annual conference, honouring an outstanding atheist whose work has done most to raise public awareness of atheism during that year. It is known as the Richard Dawkins Award, in honour of Dawkins' own work."

oh but you are probably right ne171pro, he is - what did you call him? - oh yes, "the dumbest scientist I’ve seen this year."

yeah i have to agree with your comment on Hitchens not being that great. He is a sponsor of the war in Iraq and Afganistan... he sounds like Bush when he talks about those wars, very strange to see an intelligent man like him talk like that.

I dont see why people say Dawkins is an arrogant elitist ? I guess they prove their own ignorance and that they cant reason against his logic when it comes to religion.

What a dumb ass. How about REAL astronomy. Not daily horoscopes which are advertising tools for the real. Astrology gave birth to all our knowledge, LIKE astronomy, Zoology, Cryptology, Biology, etc.

Astrology is science, Its called MATHEMATICS. Knowledge of the stars is knowledge OVER mankind. Astrology isn't just predicting reality, its the means to influence reality it self.

Real astrology is priceless. To think your a scientist and that massive body's in our solar system are not influencing reality is like saying you don't need a engine or transmission for a car to work.

In fact, I use astrology and the I-Ching to live free of money and i do not sell it. It quit literally is science. Backed by evidence. You realize the oldest spiritual book in history the I-Ching book of changes describes a mathematical code called the binary code? We made electricity follow this code and gave birth to computers.

Hanging on to irrationality is not in itself bad. It's just that when we do it to the point where we make life and death decisions based upon irrationality that I become worried. The damage from irrationality has recently (and historically) been used by shrewd and rational people in US politics to gain their ends. The 21st century seems, so far, to be marked by these people using fear to cause many others to become voluntarily irrational and it's been to the detriment of everyone. Yes I am talking about Fox News, The Tea Party Movement, Internet Conspiracy theorists and their ilk. They claim evidence but generally nothing but a strangely woven tapestry of fact and fiction. Yet people are believing in them. I share Richard Dawkins' call to a return to rationality and logic. We have not needed it so badly since the Dark Ages.

I've been studying in holistic nutrition, from what I have been reading, a lot of healing foods that have been labeled on instinct through the ages do turn out to be scientifically proven as legit cures. But I guess Dawkins fails to let us know about that one. I am irritated that he poked fun at the obvious wrong sides of natural meds, but wont talk of the ones that have good promise.

He makes the whole vaccine issue sound so simple, when in fact it's not. I have been doing as much research as I can on the subject and there are a lot of holes in the scientific tests they conducted that makes vaccines "safe"(if you have a good link I'd like to see it)

I don't believe in much new age stuff. But yet I do think our intuition can bring us to levels we don't understand.
I saw a doc where it explained that the brain will notify us of what we need. A man shipwrecked was eating fish, and being very starved saw the flesh and eyeballs as super food, something we most don't touch when in civilization. apparently his intuition knew the flesh contained vital nutrients to help his survival....

if being someone with "reason" means being a grumpy arrogant elitist such as Dawkins, well I'd rather hang out with hippies instead.

And I agree with your opinion to a point. I do think that religious beliefs stem from a mental illness but, I don't see any need to exterminate it. More just contain it by not allowing the pushing of it.

As for children, yes, it's despicable how they are brainwashed in many places.

Wrote small previous post, saying okay. no problem. do not know why it is under moderation.

In answer,
1...Yes, placebo effect is what I believe.
2...Yes, Newtonian, and Einstein RlTV. is for Macro, not Micro.
no Quantum gravity yet with Gravitrons.
3...I give no claims to homeopathic medicine, think it is placebo.
4...You probably disagree with my Kant philosophy, which is okay, I disagree with your Empiricist-Tabula rasa philosophy.
5... Quantum theory, you do not know me well enough to postulate what I do or do not know!!
Will leave this for now.

Thank you, Yes, some attack venomously, but mostly just differences of opinion, that is what these blogs are about.
That is welcomed, but when they get personal, is a different ballgame, there should be no reason for that at all!
By trying to belittle, or snide remarks, should have no place in these blogs! They should go to "Youtube" where it seems anything is allowed.

Occam's razor heavily supports Dawkins' beliefs in this case. The simplest explanation of alternative medicine is the placebo effect

And many of those scientific facts (which are actually called theories, by the way, I don't think fact has been used in any literal sense since Newtonian Physics were found to not work on a small level) are based on the evidence and Occam's razor, as they are the simplest explanation of the evidence.

Occam's razor is simply "Don't make stuff more complicated than it has to be." Allowing for change in science is one thing, but giving any validity to claims of homeopathic medicine is completely against Occam's Razor.

Hence your name being ironic. I don't mean to be insulting, just merely pointing out the irony. I do disagree with what you've said throughout this conversation, not all of it, of course but, I don't think you're an idiot or anything.

I just love irony, and you provided it.

Now please, read over my previous comment, I imagine you'll agree with at least some of it.

I have been reading these posts and am sorry that you need to defend yourself against such ignorance. If people would actually educate themselves about the topics they discuss this wouldn't happen. I guess the conditioning of the mind is too great for some to overcome. I hope all you that have been plagued by the disease ignorance will be able to see the world in a new way in the coming shift of ages we are witnessing.

as people become more enlightened and knowledgable religion will either reform[its inevitable] or face a natural death like communism or other ideologies.There has been an impression that religion is expanding in Africa,latin america and some parts of asia but i do not agree with this theory.Articles comming from kenya show that religions-christianity/islam are losing their youth followers,this is the picture you find in many third world countries.
If i take the countries with the highest standards of living they are the countries with the list following of religion,even the bible belt states in america have the highest rate of crime,unemployment,divorce,arboutions,peodifile priests and non priests, state excutions etc than anyother state in america.
Its not that religion is the only source of evil[its among the greatest]and that it hasnt contributed positively in some aspect but if you weigh its good and bad,the bad would outweigh the good by a ratio of 7:3.7stands for bad.
Science on the other hand the good has outweighed the bad in an ration of 7:1,7stands for good.The good thing is science is flexible its ready to change its on the move,it can shed of its skin like a reptile,can adopt in new environment,it sells its self on conviction.
Religion on the other hand is spread by fear,manipulation,coesion etc,it is dangerous ideology.Catholic church priests have to be celibate but they end up sodomising minors,the policy from vatican is to supress those cases instead of dealing with wayward priests or doing away with celibate dogma.The muslims on the other hand will kill anyone who do not see koran as they see.A shia will be killed by a sunni because they dont understand koran the same way.
Why dont religious ppo let god fight for itself?ppo should WAKE UP!!!

@Erik
Though disappearance of religion wouldn't end violence and war it would definitely end religious war and violence. Whether or not another violence appears is another matter though, there is no evidence that there would be.

It would also stop being something to hide behind to justify your prejudices towards ... basically anybody not exactly like you. You must see that many of the prejudices in our society (notably american society) is justified and strengthened by religion.

Without religion it would be just pure and obvious prejudice which could be dealt with alone.

Disappearance of religion doesn't equate with the disappearance of violence and war. There is no basis for ethics and morality in science, even though we can have ethics and morality without religion. There are (good and bad)things between science and religion. Science is a tool for human progress, but we have to use it correctly:)

Einstein dreaming up hot to put the theory of relativity together, and by dreaming up I mean coming up with it in a dream while asleep, fits in with quite a few theories about dreaming. There was a good documentary done by Nova not too long ago which showed that a mix of REM and non-REM sleep may be one of the ways the mind solves complex problems. So it's not at all supernatural that he dreamed it up.

And that quote by Einstein seems to simply be stating that time is a dimension, one that we go through and understand at a certain speed (one second per second if you would). I believe it was Einstein who put forth the idea of time being the fourth dimension so it would not be crazy to assume that's what he was talking about.

As for Quantum physics and mechanics, it is a very advanced level of science and one that is not fully understood like all sciences, really :P But learning about it is one thing, profiting from it (whether by using it to make your "new age" medicine seem more feasible or by profiting in an argument by throwing it around) without having a good understanding of it is foolish.

The world is much more complex than what we can observe, that's true. But then we should push science because it's the thing that has revealed so much of it to us. And we shouldn't just try to throw out answers (like God did it) but follow a series of questions to the answer.

Any medicine that fails or does not submit itself to trials is stupid to believe in. That's not to say that it's not a valid treatment (unless it fails, of course, in which case yay placebo), but it's stupid to believe in stuff without evidence.

It is much better and much more intelligent to reach the wrong conclusion by following the evidence than to reach the right one by guessing. I thought most people were taught that in elementary school, surprised that I was wrong.

I see it is not only me that you give the gears to. You make me laugh.

I do not make stuff up. But I do quote sometimes, as a matter of fact will give direct quote from Einstein, as follows...

Death does not exist in a timeless spaceless world, said Einstein.
quote..."Now Besso (an old friend) has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing, people like us...know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. Immortality doesn't mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether."...end of quote.

If you think that is nonsense than take it up with Einstein.

I really do not care what you believe in at all. You think all science is based on concrete logic and technology, Einstein while he was sleeping had a "dream" of how to put the theory of relativity together. Where is the logic in that.

Not all things work on logic, unless you happen to be living on the planet "Vulcan".

Hardly anybody knows that much about Quantum physics, Quantum Mechanics. But at least am not scared to try to find out all I can about the next new science.

I wonder why that really bothers some people so much!!!
I could site you a lot of reasons why stuff is not as cut and dry as you think. But why should I? Some thing more for you to scoff at!

This is my last post to you, I will have no further discussion with you. peace to you!

@Achems Razor - I don't even know what "Quantum Theory" is. I do have a gentle grasp of quantum mechanics and no where does it ever describe "outgoing reality beyond our physical reality" You are either making it up (dont think you are that creative) or you a spueing someone else's nonsense (most likly). There is no such thing as "outgoing reality".

Once again we come to the part of the discussion where "all the bad people should have an open mind". What is wrong with not believing something that is fantastical. What is wrong with basing my beliefs in the concrete logic of science and technology. What is wrong with demanding proof. If it cant be explained it is just a story, If it cant be explained "yet" is is just a story. I don't base decisions in my life off of stories, and I dont have to believe your story just to make you feel better.

Maybe its the farmer in me but when I smell snake oil I reach for my guns. I like to think that Dawkins smells the same oil that I do.

I would rather live on a flat world then live on a round world because someones "Quantum Outgoing Magic Theory Reality Crystal" told them it was round. I would rather be ignorant for the right reasons then enlightened by the wrong reasons. Especially when it comes down to my hard earned dollar, or worse, the dollar of those that these people prey upon.

@ Epicurus - if it would shut up the mental midgets I would go along with the "cant say the word quantum unless you had some serious conditionals to back it up" idea. It is amazingly rare to say the word quantum and have someone say something intelligent back at you. Also... I am an extremist from the sect of skepticism.

@Fire worker - its not that science disbelieves the phenomena... its that science shows that there is no phenomena. To sell something that time and time again is shown to "not work" crazy. But it makes you sad on the inside that science crushed your ideas. So no only is science wrong but it is actually a bad thing for making you sad.

@Amy - my personal experience is that you REALLY need to find a doctor that doesn't prescribe you "magic"

Ok now unleash the blah blah blah - you are ignorant if - blah blah blah - I see where you get the name - blah blah -dont know the future - blah blah blah - using facts against me makes me sad - blah blah - science will prove ghosts and santa clause were aliens from the QUANTonium dimension - blah

I would your statement is true accept for one word - "use". It's typical behavior for those who "abuse" and become addicted. Your first 3 statements are also applicaple to those who drive faster then the speed limit and neglect to get maintenance on their vehicles. Your next statement is also applicable to those who are religious, although their "fix" varies from individual to individual.

The entire “gateway” theory regarding the use of marijuana has been debated and is by no means set in stone. I bet a certain number of those individual were consuming alcohol before they moved on to the much harder stuff. It is much more complicated than I used weed, now I’m on Crack.

You’re cherry picking. I could safely assume that atheism(I’m an atheist) is a gateway to hate, genocide, and murder in the same way you assume that religion is. For instance, Hitler was a Catholic while Stalin was an atheist. I don’t think that’s a good argument at all.

I also don’t like your analogy of drugs to religion. It’s not a simple as that.

Having religion controlled by the government or illegal is silly and wrong. In an attempt to free someones personal will, you could unintentionally be eradicating it. It is the same thing with fast food for instance. I’m sure that individual that weighs 500 pounds had no intention of eating himself to death. Should we make fast food illegal? Not only is it bad for you but it is disguised as being good for you. How are these individuals allowed to advertise to little kids? How is that not similar to a mother forcing her child to attend church? It has to be left to the individual.

And logic and rational thinking can win with education. Statistics have shown that more and more people are turning away from religion and it’s a trend likely to continue. How each individual raises his or her child is up to that individual.

The idea that we can just get rid of religion by arguing about it or hating it is ridiculous. I’m from Croatia, an extremely catholic country, and now I’m an atheist. I was forced to attend church, baptized, etc. and yet somehow I’m an atheist today. I made that choice.

What I have seen in our society is a complete lack of responsibility for ones own actions. Everybody has an excuse as to why they are how they are, what they are, where they are. No one wants to take charge and use their own brain in today’s society. It is the same with people like Richard Dawkins. Someone who can’t see any opinion but his own opinion.

The truth and reality is that the majority of the religious people in our world today are just trying to get by and feed their families. The majority of them don’t go out to kill, rape, torture, etc. people. The majority of them are just trying to get by. They don’t fly planes into buildings and they don’t go out protesting and telling you “You’re going to hell if you don’t convert”. It’s nonsense. Don’t let a few idiots affect your opinion of all.

Religion has its place in society. Many religious people go out to help other people. Whether they do it because their god tells them too or because they are genuinely empathetic is insignificant. As long as people are getting help.

If you just take the bad and ignore the good, then you are destined to become just like those religious nuts who hate, except you’ll be on the other side of the fence. The same fence Richard Dawkins is.

Another thing, those who use drugs hurt a lot more people than just themselves. They just their family and friends. They destroy relationships. They become manipulative, steal, lie to get their fix. They affect those closest to them in ways that they don't even realize.

Btw, from my personal experience, I can tell that homeopathic medicine does not equal placebo effect. I was very sceptical when my new GP suggested a homeopathic medicine to cure the unexplicable ache in my knee. I didn't believe for a second that it would help me, as the orthodox medicine failed, but it did!

I "DO" think anybody can talk about Quantum all they want, any time that they want! you do not know what anybody actually does knows do you? Don't need no papers from any peers telling me hey! maybe you are as good as I am.

You have no right at all to tell anybody what they may want to try to learn, with or without all the degrees.

It sure as hell is one way to learn, it is like forced learning, have learned a lot, and just take that at face value. It is no ones business but my own!! Thank you!

Marijuana has been labeled a "gateway" drug, which means users have a high potential of moving on to harder more addictive and destructive substances. The way they drew this conclusion was by applying the fact that most people who are addicted cocaine, opiates and methamphetamine's have all started out innocently enough with marijuana.

Lets apply this same logic to religion. Christianity for example, if you took the amount of believers throughout its history and compared that to the number of those who believe and have killed, died or hated in the name of their religion, then it would be safe to assume religion is a gateway to hate, genocide and murder. Just like with marijuana, all the users started out innocently and with good intention.

So why is religion not only legal but seen as a virtue and actually encouraged in every society in the world, while marijuana and the real drugs such as cocaine and opiates are either illegal or controlled substances?

Its because your right. Its the individual who makes the choice to use religion to do evil and the individual who makes the choice to move on to harder drugs. The gateway theory is complete garbage.

But! This is not a comment on why drugs should be legal but rather why religion should be illegal, illegal or controlled by the government. Because as a society we recognize the power of drugs to crush ones personal will and turn them into something they had no intention on being we make these drugs illegal and control their distribution for the benefit of society at large. Religion works the same way, I believe that it is to dangerous of an ideal to just leave in the hands of an individual. Especially when you factor in that most are born into religion and they have these ideal's hammered into their head from the age of infancy and surround themselves with a group of people who perpetuate the idea. How can logic and rational thinking win over that? And one more point, those who use drugs really only hurt themselves, cant say the same for religion.

So that's why I think we shouldn't "shut the hell up? Let others believe what they want to believe."

just because we cant understand everything doesnt mean the existence of the nonsense we and the video are talking about exist.

its a perspective to look at the world objectively. there are not many other perspectives with theses. there are different groups with many idea...that doesnt mean they are theories. they themselves cannot demonstrate not only how they work but THAT They work more than mere chance would.

and people REALLY need to stop talking about quantum theory. if you dont have at least a masters in math physics or quantum physics just stop invoking it.

science doesnt disbelieve phenomena that cant be explained yet but it disregards claims of phenomenon that cant dbe demonstrated.

Science was created to explain the physical world and your right it does that very well. I do think science is still subjective though, its a perspective to look at the world with its own strengths and weaknesses. There are many other perspectives with theses. This documentary is trying to explain affects from a non physical plane, so obviously failing to find anything scientific in it. I think it will take a fair few years for science to explain these 'phenomena' but as they advance in Quantum Theory I believe it will. I would also say it’s ignorant for science to disbelieve phenomena just because it can’t be explained yet, especially when they are fully aware they don’t understand everything yet!

You should not write stuff unless you know what you are talking about!

Old Science?? you must be talking about facts.

Epicurus, said it most succinctly on his post...04/12/2010 at 08:19
instead of me writing something parallel read his post!

You know there is no such thing as "outgoing reality", or "ongoing reality" in correlation to, or should I say invisible, to our 5 senses do you?? and you know this for a fact!
Prey tell, how do you know this??

When I say Quantum, am referring to Quantum theory. You say Quantum has nothing to do with this. Quantum, (Quantum Theory) has everything to do with everything!

I'm an atheist but Dawkins pisses me off. Really can't stand him as he is no different from the religious nuts. Why can't people just shut the hell up? Let others believe what they want to believe. Stop those who block scientific progress and if someone wants to believe that there is a magic man in the sky, let them.

Just 1 more point. Calling religion evil is silly. I've seen people point out the atrocities throughout history that have been committed by religious nuts. Well, there have been atrocities committed by atheist nuts throughout history as well. Religion isn't evil. Most religions want you to treat each other with kindness, generosity, and humility.

People can be evil. People have killed for money too. It doesn't make money evil. It makes those people evil.

Just move on and accept that certain people are evil. Few bad apples doesn't mean you can't pick the good ones.

I agree with your point and would like to add to it with another analogy. People say they essentially use religion as a tool to achieve happiness, charity, love or some other goal. A carpenter uses a hammer to build. The difference is a carpenter does not worship the tool he used to get the job done, and has enough confidence in himself to know that he is capable of getting the job done without that particular tool. In fact their are much better tools than a hammer which are at his disposal to use to do the job, and if they are more efficient then he will choose to use them. Their are much better tools available to achieve ones own goals in regards to morality but because the believer has no confidence in their own idea's they choose not to use these tools. It's sad really, and even dangerous.

@Noahclaypole or anyone, my first point is that extremism is just a blanket term used by the layman or ignorant masses to excuse their lack of passion for things they are uneducated in.

im an extremist for the progression of humanity in a moral direction. religion is a barrier for that progression.

however like you said I also agree religion has been beneficial for our species in a social evolutionary sense. however like a child with a security blanket, at one point we need to grow up and let go.

Religion, as near as I can tell is a codefication of spiritual values/ideals as written down at a specific time and place. If you actually read any of the spiritual traditions yourself you will see that there is a constant interplay between "a prophet" who speaks out against the injustice and opression of a people, and the tyrants who then rewrite the teachings of said prophet to suit their own usually, imperical ideas.

The teachings are good but corrupted and it takes some work to "decode" it. The problem starts when rulers subvert the religion and use it for their own purposes. We need to start thinking for ourselves and not rely on priests, scientists, politicians ,the media, advertisers, and parents to tell us what to think. As a free individual I feel perfectly capable of thinking for myself thank you very much.

Suppose a scientist developes a bad theory; say a theory that isn't testable but seems to have some truth to it but then it leads folks down the wrong path. Say for insatnce a cosmology that doesn't take EME into consideration? Should all science be held accountable? Last time I checked science has some issues as well.

I find Dawkins POV facile and think he misses the point entirely.

And just so you know where I'm coming from, I subscribe to no particular faith I use them all as they are intended; as guide books for our life's journey. Although if you were going to pin me down I would say Taoism comes the closest to stripping away the BS and getting to the heart of the matter.

I think one of the worst things we could do as humans would be to eliminate spirituality from our lives. Religion I could stand to see go.

When I say, religion and faith are an intricate part of our development as a species, I should clarify that I agree in the matter that extreme religion has been responsible for the progess in science & medicine and was the driving force behind wars. I'm in no way defending those kind of actions in the modern world.

But I think that religion in terms of the belief, quandry and fear of the unknown was one of the things that seperated our prehistoric ancestors from regular animals. Replace that fear with investigation and you've got the birth of scientific progress. I totally agree that it's time to let go of that fear and allow science to continue. I just wonder if the two are entirely separable. Just as it took eons for the two to develop, it's probably going to take a large amount of time for one to disappear.

I fully agree with your stance that the scientific method alters what we believe are scientific facts. It's the gathering of new unknown evidence or knowledge that bring about those changes. No, I don't think we'll find that the polio vaccine doesn't really work but we may discover a better vaccine or discover that the existing vaccine had some adverse affects we were previously unaware of.

Of course the planet of pluto didn't change but just as you said, the classification changed and thusly the fact that pluto was a planet rather than a member of the Kuiper belt. The "data" the "evidence" IS FACT, I agree with you. But as you stated, what that evidence means is agreed upon by the educated majority. That doesn't mean it's written in stone. Majorities make mistakes.

As for Ida, I was trying to be humorous.

I appreciated your long-winded and somewhat pretentious lecture as me and my friends got a good laugh out of it. It's clear we aren't on the same page. You seem to be awfully passionate about this and I'm quite frankly a fence-sitter on the matter. Granted, being wishy-washy and uneducated may not help solve the world's problems but I'll say it again. Extremism, be it religious, political, social or scientific is what has and will bring about pain among men.

I'm all for Atheism. I'm a toe's length from being one myself. I just don't think it's rational to expect the whole of mankind to suddenly abandon the concept of religion and faith when it's been an intricate part of our development as a species. Some just can't do it.

I must apologize to all you god-fearing Christians. I believe that God's Son must live next door and is highly recognized, because when he fires up his sacred banshee leaf blower on Sundays the kind neighbor hollers over: JESUS CHRIST! Will you shut the F%*@K UP! Now that! I can honestly condone and believe in.... AMEN!

Epicurus
You have my VOTE (keep in mind however that some THEORIES are still mathematical equations on the drawing board and need some guess work? to believe? in their true existence?

Albeit,
Without religion, we as a species would have evolved much sooner...(yeah, that volkswagon coulda bin a space ship in the driveway instead) And just think of all the torturous fun that the Spanish Inquisition would have missed out on...? Furthermore: without religion...we would have no war, and cheating the arms dealers of billions would really piss them off!

@NoahClaypole. certain things we believe are subject to change, when they do it will be the scientific method used to uncover that they ought to be changed. science is nothing more than the method remember that when having this discussion. the fact that the earth rotates the sun is just a fact. we used the scientific method to discover that fact. do you think we will find the cure for polio really wasnt the cure? no using the scientific method we discovered the vaccine for polio. certain facts in evolutionary biology may change but not as drastic as you seem to be suggesting (i think we just discovered foot prints that showed our ancestors could walk upright sometimes roughly 3.6 million years ago).

about Pluto. it wasnt a fact it was a planet. it was accepted that it was defined as a planet but now we just use a different name...it hasnt changed. we didnt witness a change, just needed to classify it something else to make things a little more clear.

this small petrified monkey you speak of just bothers me. you have no idea what you are talking about here so probably shouldnt have mentioned it. what you are refering to is Ida, and it was always known to be a link between todays higher primates such as the monkeys apes and humans, and more distant mammal relatives, lemurs. there are many distinct features of her skeleton such as being a "lemur" like you said she lacks a claw on her second toe like all lemurs, and like ALL primate she has nails and actual toes and fingers. also she had opposable thumbs, the face is short like a primate not like that of a lemur. clearly Ida was and still is an important find for evolutionary biology and has shown us a nice transition from anthropoid-like mammals to primates.

gravity is still a theory...everything is a theory. let me help you.

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

i dont think you should dismiss the message just because you feel at odds with the messenger. i understand there is this hip "lets hate dawkins" band wagon, but lets grow up and realize that the man is doing what the whole world needs to do. stand up and say "enough of this nonsense". the religious people are abusing and ruining this world based on their baseless superstitions and its enough, they have had thousands of years...maybe they could piss off for a while and give rationality a go.

Yeah, the world's complicated like that. I think these types of arguements often stem from people not distinquishing the difference between "data" and "science".

And in regards to scientific interpretation, the same concept can be applied to the bible. How people use various subjective passages from the bible to proclaim that say homosexuality is 'in fact' a mortal sin. Such religious interpretations are subject to change, like when the Vatican recently proclaimed that unbabtized babies 'in fact' don't spend eternity in Limbo.

So it goes to reckon that both science and religion are concepts developed and defined by man and therefore are bound to be flawed and changed. It seems people tend to refuse this idea more often than not.

@NoahClaypole
I guess you go back to the quote "There are no facts but interpretation", but what baffles me is why certain interpretations are not subjected to change while others are.People changing their interpretation because they think it is "wrong" is counter-intuitive, if the interpretation is merely an interpretation then there is not reason to think it is wrong or requires re-evaluation. The notion that Pluto is a planet was a "fact" was never really a fact to begin with if scientist discovered that it is not a fact. Likewise the notion that the earth was at the center of the solar system was never really a fact, it was something that was discovered not to be a fact at all. Scientific methods are not subjective but objective because they test against the hypothesis that derives from the subjective. In science you don't hear someone saying "I like green" (a subjective statement), this is simply a personal preference rather than a propositional assertion of what is simply the case.

I think Epicurus is correct in stating that science is objective, but the philosophical question still remains as to how we know that science is reliable and how we can simplify scientific theories. Other than that I think science has both objective and subjective worth (Since we have the Noble prize for ambitious scientists lol)

To say that science is not a worthwhile pursuit is absolutely stupid, but to say that something must be scientifically 'proven' before it can be accepted as having validity is just the same. Someday they might find a way to unveil the chakras, until then I am going to side with the people who discovered that all of existence was energy thousands of years before scientists as kinda having a valid way of attaining valid knowledge.

The problem with Dawkins is his narrow minded view of only adhering to things that are given by science, and as NoahClaypole stated, this makes him the same as a religious extremist, just of the scientific variety, but not any better. Man I think I will go watch that episode of south park now and have a good laugh...and to see the beautiful product from people who didn't need a PhD in Biology to have common sense.

@bob - I am on the opposite pole as yourself... When I hear someone talk about spinning chakras and Dawkins asks "can i see them with a microscope." I applaud and I say "thats right Dawkins... dont give them an inch" In the US and it seems a few other places bad decisions are being made in disregards of good science. Science needs a "crusader" that isn't willing to budge in the face of misguidedness. He says put your money where your mouth is and he is more than willing to do the same. Smug, stubborn, whatever you call him he is all that he promises he is.

None of the above have anything to do with our physical senses... Yet they are not paranormal or supernatural. I know the above(baring any typos) are 100% accurate. I do not need to add some type of cosmic mysticism to prove it.

I would actually venture the statement that modern science does not rely on human senses. A good experiment will remove any dependence on human senses because we have better tools now. Microphones to replace the need for ears, high power cameras to replace eyes. Thermometer to replace touch.

I also know that there is no such thing as an "outgoing reality beyond our physical reality", and i especially know that it has nothing to do with a quantum.

You sound foolish when you miss use a word so I wrote out the definition for you

quantum

1. A quantity or amount.
2. A specified portion.
3. Something that can be counted or measured.
4. Physics
a. The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discrete quantity of electromagnetic radiation.
b. This amount of energy regarded as a unit.

So what you are saying is "there is an outgoing reality beyond our physical reality, which hinges on 'something that can be counted or measured'." Come on man... if you are going to continue to make this drivel up at least have the decency to look up a word before you try to use it.

@mahususi - Sorry mahususi but you have it all wrong... when the bible says "You shall have no other gods before me" im pretty sure what it means is that "You shall have no other gods before me". I suggest less mountain dew and more sunshine...

I think there should be a 11th commandment... You shall not make up dumb crap and try to pass it as fact or forever diarrhea will be thou inflection.

Richard Dawkins is so stubborn and closed minded and it drives me crazy. I agree with the majority of what he argues, but can't help but be angry with the way he presents it. For example, when Satish Kumar starts talking about rockness, Dawkin goes on about atoms, when I think there is something of rockness, but has nothing to do with spirituality. A rock smooth or angled leaves a trace of it's past, what it broke away from, how it broke, what forces acted upon it to be left in that state, etc. It is a visual science and history, which is a lot of the documentary, the beauty and awe of science, but to be a jerk and be stubborn Dawkins missed the point completely.

The comments are all good. If they can be divorced from all the ego. Nobody can really know what the answers are to everything. "Yet"

Don't care how many experiments there are, will come along a new experiment, new theory, to nullify the old one.

So most scientific paradigms that are viable now, could change.
To me science means change!

To me Paranormal, supernatural, the invisible world is just that, because it cannot be seen by our physical senses, which are wonderful liars, there is an outgoing reality beyond our physical reality, which hinges on Quantum, as does everything.

Perhaps someday someone will figure out what it all means, "The Theory Of Everything", until then, it is still all supposition! Period.

The design of science is to be objective. The glory of science is that it is flexible. The reason for science is to prove or disprove an idea. If you cant back your idea up using a well defined methodology than it will forever be just an idea. IF every time you test the idea it shows to be incorrect then your idea will forever be labeled incorrect.

For example... I have an idea that quartz crystal dipped in holy water and blessed by shamen prevents car crashes. I decided that my car company could save millions by replacing seat belts with this crystal. Do you think we should use some science to back up or falsify my claim or do you think we should just have an open mind and realize that science is subject to change.

Basing decisions that can hurt yourself or other people on feeling is dangerous. Science is not perfect but it is 1000x better then anything else we got.

The fact that you can get into an airplane and fly 5000miles and land safely is science. The fuel used is science, the materials used is science, the computers used to draft the design is science.

When you have surgery to remove your appendix, do you want your anesthesiologist to use new wave techniques or the proven methods researched and studied at universities. When the surgeon is complete do you want a prescription for antibiotics or should he just channel some dead relatives and have them keep you safe.

I hate Richard Dawkins arrogant style of presentation. If you want to make religious people hate an atheist introduce him, works like a charm. Carl Sagan was a role model atheist, even if you disagreed with him you have to respect the guy.:)

People turn to alterntive medicine partly because the NHS doesnt want to spend the money on doing proper tests on people who have symptoms. Instead the doctors tell them its coz they're stressed or its just one of tose thigs, or you just have to live with it. If we had a proper fuded NHS where doctors took patients symptoms seriously and tried to find out what is the cause of their symptoms, and treated patients with respect then maybe people wouldnt need to turn so much to altrenatives. In France if you have symptoms the doctor doesnt say oh you must be stressed, they do all the tests and more to find out whats wrong.

why do people believe in god? what is the pscychology? some people when eductaed, realise they have been following ignorant beliefs, yet why do other people despite education, still belief these childish imaginings? is it just how our brians work? why are humans imprisoned in superstitious beliefs and rituals? yet we have so much evidence and knoweledge from science that their beliefs are illogical. What hope for humankind if we still want to kill others coz they dont believe in the 'right' god?

"In a word, epicurus, the point is this, that were Dawikins to meet God himself, face to face, he would doubt and discredit his experience citing “lack of evidence.” Now how subjective – not to mention outright stupid – is that?!"

So lets follow this, you've come up with an imaginary scenario and draw a conclusion based on your belief of what someone else would (or wouldn't) think then base your argumant on that.

I enjoy reading the comments from religious nuts. If they are so sure that God exists surely they could go on the offensive rather than only defend themselves with clever use of language. I guess the real point is how unique the thought processes associated with faith are. Kinda like devout christian preaching one god while saying all jews will go to hell. Put 2 people of different faiths together and listen to them explain why there is only one god. Its nonsense and offensive to modern man.

Psykick, I disagree. You infer that Dawkins believes in nothing, you've created a hypothetical situation, no doubt biased by your own opinions and posed a judgement disguised as a question as though your situation has or ever will happen. I say Dawkins believes that the most objective judgement humans have for deciding whether something is "true" or not lies with scientific validation, in his view- anything is falsifiable. If you were interested enough to read his books you would know that he has set a bechmark for disproving evolution- for mammal fossils to appear in a period such as the cambrian.

In a word, epicurus, the point is this, that were Dawikins to meet God himself, face to face, he would doubt and discredit his experience citing "lack of evidence." Now how subjective - not to mention outright stupid - is that?!

Science is maybe not subjective but certainly subject to change. "1+1=2" will most likely never change because that's math but accepted 'facts' in areas like evolutionary biology, astronomic physics, geology and even medicine are constantly changing. Less than a decade ago, it was a 'fact' that Pluto was a planet. Now it's been demoted because the accepted scientific criteria for a planet has changed. Less than a year ago scientists apparently found some small petrified monkey that was declared the missing link. Now it's been labeled nothing more than a prehistoric lemur. I guess my point is, is that a large amount of accept science that is taught as fact (i.e. plate tectonics, origins of the moon, properties of black holes, aspects of evolution, psychology) even with all the evidence are still technically theories. In other words, scientific faith. The data won't change, but how we interpret it, its meaning, is indeed subjective. I guess that's the allure of religion, the alleged constancy and set rules.

Anywho. I have no problems with Aetheism, just Extremism, be it religious, political, social, or scientific.

I honestly never get through any of these Dawkins fellow's documentaries as they aggrivate me so. Just a bit too self-indulgent for my taste.

Science isn't subject to change; it's our conclusions that are fluid due to new discoveries and observations. The criteria for a solar satellite to be called a planet have been written down years ago. At this time it was believed that Pluto fit the criteria that was necessary to be known as a planet. As we learned more about this satellite, it was seen that we had been wrong all along. When that lemur was discovered it was though that it was a missing link in human evolution. Upon closer inspection, it was realized that this was a mistake. Your scenarios should prove that science does not support extremism. A scientist with extremist views would not have admitted the mistakes and held to belief that Pluto is a planet, no matter what the evidence. The science we are taught is based is what is known at the time. Any true scientist knows that it is subject to change if the evidence warrants the change. Evidence is the key. Not dogma; evidence. Dogma is a synonym for stubbornness. Stubbornness has no room in the pursuit of knowledge.

ranii02
- 01/10/2012 at 03:40

well said sir.

Costakidd
- 04/11/2010 at 08:39

I think its funny that people feel the need to debunk this stuff. New age has been tested by science like this by everyone from the U.S Gov. to Penn and Tellar (Vegas magicians). We all know its B.S, even the people who love it know its not concrete (subconsciously), these science guys dont get that it is a magic trick, and people love it, which is why it will never fade, just change with humanity, always to be unexplainable yet intriguing and obtainable to everyone. Humans have always loved this stuff and always will.

explain how science is subjective. it is the most objective attempt we have at explaining phenomenon. it is also the most accurate as you can tell from basically everything you benefit from.

what ivory tower is dawkins in? what a silly thing to say. science uses a method which attempts to make the experiments as objective as possible. of course they are relative to the realm of reality we perceive and function in but thats why we have things like quantum physics.

would you say 1+1=2 is subjective....or this thing and that thing together makes both of these things together? is that objective or subjective? how about the rotation of the earth around the sun? or the distance from england to hong kong? how would you uncover these things?

i was majoring in philosophy before i switched my major, dont patronize me.

Because science relies on the people who practice it...and human perception is always subjective - BY DEFINITION. They are not robots, but imperfect people. Science is entirely subjective (except Physics, both regular and quantum, and mathematics).

Epicurus
- 03/18/2013 at 14:58

the scientific method is our attempt at objectivity by making rules that weed out subjectivity as much as possible. hence why we have a computer that is allowing us to communicate over vast distances. the scientists didnt just use subjective hunches when designing this.

CW
- 04/11/2010 at 06:43

I agree with Epicurus. The problem in my opinion stems from people not researching into "facts" themselves and just accepting the word of mouth and opinion. If you disagree with Dawkins perhaps research one of the areas he looks at in the documentry.
I do however think that religion does play a roll in enforcing ethics when not abused.

Science is subjective as well, so bravo for being just as (if not more) ignorant. Dawkins is too busy stuck fumbling around in his ivory tower to remember that the model of science has limitations as well, namely because of those who employ it, i.e. us. Being far from objective observers able to tease away a totally impartial view of reality, science is thus another subjective intellectual endeavour, although I give much creedence to its conserved methodology. This exact reason is why we have a Philosophy of Science section at any major university, maybe try visiting one someday.

S clearly didnt watch this series. the whole thing is about him trying to put these things to real scientific tests.

when it comes to reality and science subjective is not an option. and that is exactly the point in these videos. the fact that S so perfectly displayed what is wrong with todays world is just wonderful. thank you.

richard dawkins attacks easy prey, and uses science in a similar manner as the pope uses religion. he dismisses entirely any thing thought, idea, or concept which science has not validated nor does he make any mention of the costs humans and the planet are paying for scientific advancements. while watching this doc, take with a grain of salt, as the suppossed protagonist is not sufficiently subjective